Intro and self-analysis (long post + pictures)

[Gilly]

Buh...this is why we need my crackpot list. Don't you guys see now?

[aestrivex]

Buh...this is why we need my crackpot list. Don't you guys see now?

for people who have some idea what they're talking about, it's already obvious enough who the proverbial crackpots are.


for new members, the presence of a list of crackpots buried three pages deep in anything goes will not make any difference at all.

for crackpots, the presence of your list will likewise not make any difference at all.

[implied]

dee has only been here a few months while most people have been studying this for years at this point. Despite dee's authoritative tone, I would put the opinions of those who have more experience above his.

yeah, this bugs me generally on this forum and in other arenas as well. the louder and more confidently you can say THE WRONG THING, the more likely it seems that people will eat it up. it's amazing what presentation does for the ability of people to take you seriously.

[Gilly]

for new members, the presence of a list of crackpots buried three pages deep in anything goes will not make any difference at all.

New members are the ones I'm worried about. What I'm saying is that my list should have been stickied; pretty fucking thick of you to suggest that you thought I meant it would do any good without being visible. You take me for that stupid?

[Gilly]

dee has only been here a few months while most people have been studying this for years at this point. Despite dee's authoritative tone, I would put the opinions of those who have more experience above his.

yeah, this bugs me generally on this forum and in other arenas as well. the louder and more confidently you can say THE WRONG THING, the more likely it seems that people will eat it up. it's amazing what presentation does for the ability of people to take you seriously.

Which is precisely why we should have a generally accepted list of people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

[Creepy-bg]

I think we should make a list of people who are for making a list of people who are crackpots...

if your for making this sort of list add your name here...

OFFICIAL LIST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR MAKING A LIST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR MAKING A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CRACKPOTS.

Bionicgoat

[aestrivex]

for new members, the presence of a list of crackpots buried three pages deep in anything goes will not make any difference at all.

New members are the ones I'm worried about. What I'm saying is that my list should have been stickied; pretty fucking thick of you to suggest that you thought I meant it would do any good without being visible. You take me for that stupid?

if you sticky something, that makes it pretty official. you can do whatever you want in terms of making a thread saying "the following people are crackpots" because that's your opinion and whoever wants to listen to you can freely do so, and whoever wants to ignore you can also do so.

if you sticky the same list, then that's not fair to those people that are on the list, even if they are crackpots; you're taking away their right not to speak necessarily but to have themselves heard, and you're taking away the rights of new members to listen and decide for themselves that these people are crackpots.

[Creepy-bg]

this is a great idea! it's going to turn out wonderfully... let's do it!

[aestrivex]

I think we should make a list of people who are for making a list of people who are crackpots...

if your for making this sort of list add your name here...

OFFICIAL LIST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR MAKING A LIST OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FOR MAKING A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO ARE CRACKPOTS.

Bionicgoat

i nominate tcaud

[tereg]

dee has only been here a few months while most people have been studying this for years at this point. Despite dee's authoritative tone, I would put the opinions of those who have more experience above his.

yeah, this bugs me generally on this forum and in other arenas as well. the louder and more confidently you can say THE WRONG THING, the more likely it seems that people will eat it up. it's amazing what presentation does for the ability of people to take you seriously.

Which is precisely why we should have a generally accepted list of people who don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

i'm totally pro this idea and if i foor example really talk rubbish, please feel free to put me up.

This kind of discussion is weighing on me a more and more. I am finding myself really putting what dee has to say to the test to see if it makes sense. I'm becoming more skeptical of dee's ideas, but not willing to dismiss though.

I was going through this thread again, and I started see things like this:

"I know that if I'm around them it will show in my body language that I don't really want to be there, and that wouldn't be fair to them."

attempting ... to not subject the person to my bad attitude by being there.

I don't feel like I can personally adequately explain why.

all these are signs of super ego Fi, polr in particular.

When things that I have said (and people have commented) throughout the thread numerous times that are much better understood in context contradict this. This kind of stuff does look pick-and-choose-ish to me. EDIT: That plus what I've read for myself seem to contradict it.

Yes, I do tend to gravitate to people who are seem to be in more authority and who seem to me like they know what they're talking about. And I feel quite guarded knowing this because of its gullible, persuasive (and potentially dangerous) nature. I want to stay grounded in reality but still too afraid to dismiss possibilities (as whimsical as they are by consensus, yet still for some reason struggle to be definitive in declaring this). So, as a result, I'm honestly really leery at the moment, but still can't work up the gumption to dismiss dee completely. It doesn't feel right to me for some reason.

What others have contributed and what I have picked up as general trends, I'm really starting to warm up to. I see the trends, and the picture is becoming more clear to me.

There are still some details of differing points of view I want to work out, but Delta NF and ethical preference has been a strong, common refrain throughout this thread that I think seems most likely.

I like Phaedrus's summary. It is very consise, to the point and seems very reasonable to me. niffweed's/implied's reasons for IEE seem reasonable to me as well.

I'm curious to investigate heath's observations more in detail as well.

Equal parts John Belushi, Auvi, Bionicgoat, and...Ed Norton? o_O

This made me smile. A lot.

(You're cute btw ;p)

So did this.


Ok, I have some errands to run, so I'll be back later.

[Gilly]

for new members, the presence of a list of crackpots buried three pages deep in anything goes will not make any difference at all.

New members are the ones I'm worried about. What I'm saying is that my list should have been stickied; pretty fucking thick of you to suggest that you thought I meant it would do any good without being visible. You take me for that stupid?

if you sticky something, that makes it pretty official. you can do whatever you want in terms of making a thread saying "the following people are crackpots" because that's your opinion and whoever wants to listen to you can freely do so, and whoever wants to ignore you can also do so.

if you sticky the same list, then that's not fair to those people that are on the list, even if they are crackpots; you're taking away their right not to speak necessarily but to have themselves heard, and you're taking away the rights of new members to listen and decide for themselves that these people are crackpots.

I'm not taking anyone's right to be heard; I haven't ignored dee or tcaud or even Phaedrus, have I? They can all still post and we can all still read their posts if we choose to. I'm all about letting people be heard. I'm also all about letting people hear who is a reliable source of information and who isn't. If people want to ignore them completely after a list is made, that's their independent, individual decision to make. I just want everyone to know.

[aestrivex]

I'm not taking anyone's right to be heard; I haven't ignored dee or tcaud or even Phaedrus, have I? They can all still post and we can all still read their posts if we choose to. I'm all about letting people be heard. I'm also all about letting people hear who is a reliable source of information and who isn't. If people want to ignore them completely after a list is made, that's their independent, individual decision to make. I just want everyone to know.

ya, i get that. the problem is that you can't just say that X, Y, and Z are unreliable crackpots. you can say that as an individual, and nobody can challenge your opinion, but the problem is that you simply can't call your opinions objective judgments and apply them universally. if you sticky a particular topic, that implies that there is some official, authority-approved agreement about who the crackpots are. in this case, either you are the authority and are behaving according to your own subjective opinions (which makes you a pretty bad authority figure), or else you are operating according to some universal consensus.

your consensus is not universal. there are some people (read: curioussoul, labcoat, etc.), that subscribe to the theories of these "crackpots." to inform a newcomer that such and such is a crackpot is not an objective determination given this dissent. there is no way to make it an objective determination.

essentially, everybody has to find their own subjective interpretation of socionics; you can't simply tell them that this is the way things are, X, Y, and Z are crackpots and you shouldn't listen to them, and rather listen to me, for i am the great prophet. you are no better than any crackpot if you do that.

[tereg]

Equal parts John Belushi, Auvi, Bionicgoat, and...Ed Norton? o_O

Judge for yourself.





^ Left from about 2 1/2 years ago



Edit: Ed Norton picture got x'd, using a different one

[Expat]

I think Delta NF is clear. Overall Delta goals and values; Fi, Si, Te, Ne are all there.

Like most people, I'm just unsure about IEE or EII. I tend to think that IEE is more likely, because in the video he was essentially talking about being pleased at buying a good car despite the negotiating difficulties -- so pleased about his Te accomplishments while aware of the difficulties with Se. From the theory and from my experience, I think IEEs are way more likely to spontaneously choose such an subject - their success at negotiation - than EIIs. EIIs would be more likely to avoid the "tough" negotiating bit altogether, and to have expected someone to have helped them with the purchase overall.

[tereg]

For those of you that are going between EII and IEE, is there anything that I can describe that would help make this distinction clearer?

Any specific questions that come to mind? Something I might be able to describe in another video perhaps?

[Gilly]

Fi sub, if IEE, I think.

[Gilly]

actually i think ENFP is a good possibility, at least from VI.

ROFL

[Gilly]

actually i think ENFP is a good possibility, at least from VI.

ROFL

I get the impression that you change your beliefs and conclusions very quickly and easily....

This is one way of defining Holography: you choose to believe one thing, then see how comfortable it is to believe that. Then you try to believe another thing, and compare to the belief you've entertained before.

This is how I think. (and I am Holographic as hell)

Precisely why both of you need a big fat red CRACKPOT stamped across your sigs.

[tereg]

Fi sub: It sees in the people the concealed gravities and attachments, prefers to work on the short psychological distance (in contrast to the terminal). It loves to give advice, it gravitates towards to the psychoanalysis, in this case counts on manifestation in the people of their positive qualities. It can stand for others, defending their interests, defends itself with difficultly. Is outwardly more frequently thin. In the clothing prefers the free cut, soft tones.

Ne sub: Very sociable, spirited, mobile person. The initiator of many matters; however, is characterized by large restlessness and changeability. Man very creative, but is scattered and not disciplined. It is capable to splash out its dissatisfaction even onto the authorities, it does not care about being a subordinate. Outwardly - it more frequently has complete rounded forms. In the clothing it can be demonstrative, bright sometimes even loud.

If I had to choose between the two about which one I think describes me more completely using these definitions, I would say the Fi sub.

There is actually nothing in the Fi sub description that I feel contradicts me.

In the Ne sub, I relate well to the bolded parts.

Expressing dissatisfaction to authority figures (or really in general) kind of bothers me. If I have a strong opposition to something that someone has, I will very frequently hold back the opinion. The only time I might express it is if I a personal comfort level for the person, and I feel like my dissent will not offend or cause them to get riled up. And even at that point, I (a minus trait, I will admit) still sugar coat the dissent, trying to point out potential positives in its light. (I've tried and continue to try to get better at this and consciously being more declarative)

I prefer to be modest or professional in clothing style (I wear t-shirt and jeans quite frequently, I feel comfortable in formal dress, and don't like to be "loud" in my fashion at all. I don't like sticking out to people.) but I do have a collection of rayon/hawaiian (that are not way out there) shirts that I will wear every once in a while if I feel the social setting justifies it.

[Phaedrus]

An ENFp who can identify with ISFJ descriptions would be a rather strange creature. I doubt that such creatures exist -- especially if they have been brought up in a family environment where everyone is using MBTI and they have "a fairly decent understanding of it".

[Gilly]

ya, i get that. the problem is that you can't just say that X, Y, and Z are unreliable crackpots. you can say that as an individual, and nobody can challenge your opinion, but the problem is that you simply can't call your opinions objective judgments and apply them universally. if you sticky a particular topic, that implies that there is some official, authority-approved agreement about who the crackpots are. in this case, either you are the authority and are behaving according to your own subjective opinions (which makes you a pretty bad authority figure), or else you are operating according to some universal consensus.

your consensus is not universal. there are some people (read: curioussoul, labcoat, etc.), that subscribe to the theories of these "crackpots." to inform a newcomer that such and such is a crackpot is not an objective determination given this dissent. there is no way to make it an objective determination.

essentially, everybody has to find their own subjective interpretation of socionics; you can't simply tell them that this is the way things are, X, Y, and Z are crackpots and you shouldn't listen to them, and rather listen to me, for i am the great prophet. you are no better than any crackpot if you do that.

I'm not pretending that this hypothetical consensus is universal. I'm talking about operating on the opinion of the majority as an indicator of general sensibility. There are such things as "right" and "wrong" in Socionics, and I think the people here as a collective are capable of weeding out some of the obviously bad seeds. Who listens to curioussoul, labcoat, tcaudilllg, dee, or Phaedrus other than themselves? Nobody! That's worth something, isn't it? Should we just call them "people who nobody listens to" instead of "crackpots?" I'd rather not make this a popularity contest and just go ahead and say what we're all thinking: they're wrong.

I'm not trying to claim that I know everything about Socionics, or that the way I do things is the best way, but I think there are some people here who quite clearly are NOT going in the right direction, and we can keep people from going down a path that we know isn't the right one.

[aestrivex]

There are such things as "right" and "wrong" in Socionics

the reality of the matter is that there are not, and this is why you are wrong. socionics is subjective and you cannot ignore that some people interpret it in bizarre, braindead ways.


you can say whatever you like about these people, but the minute you treat them like second-class citizens based on their opinions, no matter how stupid they may be, you have drastically curtailed their right to be heard.


unless your response is the most brilliant essay ever written, i'm done with this conversation.

[Gilly]

There are such things as "right" and "wrong" in Socionics

the reality of the matter is that there are not, and this is why you are wrong. socionics is subjective and you cannot ignore that some people interpret it in bizarre, braindead ways.


you can say whatever you like about these people, but the minute you treat them like second-class citizens based on their opinions, no matter how stupid they may be, you have drastically curtailed their right to be heard.


unless your response is the most brilliant essay ever written, i'm done with this conversation.

1 The world is everything that is the case.

2 What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.

3 The logical picture of the facts is the thought.

4 The thought is the significant proposition.

5 Propositions are truth-functions of elementary propositions.

(An elementary proposition is a truth-function of itself.)

6The general form of truth-function is: [ p-bar , xi-bar , N( xi-bar )].

This is the general form of proposition.

7Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


You may think my inclusion of proposition 7 ironic, which, in some sense, it is, but I believe by your word you may perhaps be compelled to continue our discourse.

Do you REALLY think Socionics is entirely subjective? You don't think people actually have methods of taking in information that more or less correlate to sets of motivations? If not, why the hell are you wasting your time here?

I'm not trying to treat them as second class citizens any more than is necessary to get their baseless systemic interpretations of a more or less believable model of a part of the human psyche out of the way of people learning about themselves. Is that too much to ask?

[aestrivex]

spare me the logical calculus next time.

i take issue not with 7 but rather with proposition 3.

Do you REALLY think Socionics is entirely subjective? You don't think people actually have methods of taking in information that more or less correlate to sets of motivations? If not, why the hell are you wasting your time here?

you misunderstand what i mean when i say that socionics is subjective. personally, i have seen enough evidence that socionics exists in accordance with the classical sense.

what i'm getting at is not that socionics has multiple different valid interpretations, but rather that reality itself has infinitely many different valid interpretations. there is absolutely no way to logically distinguish the veracity of one from the other because they are subjective perceptions that don't mean anything.

some people might subscribe to the idea that the sky is green. in this they would be wrong only in a practical sense, but not in any kind of definite capacity.




yes, these people are stupid and they're wrong about socionics. but you can't go from there to officially deeming them enemies of the state, because it's not objective to do so. in accordance with political correctness, if you dismiss the legitimacy of their arguments not in an informal but in an official capacity, then you've already lost.

[Expat]

For those of you that are going between EII and IEE, is there anything that I can describe that would help make this distinction clearer?

Any specific questions that come to mind? Something I might be able to describe in another video perhaps?

Some questions --

How would others be more likely to describe you? As

- calm, balanced, "unflappable" OR
- mobile, impulsive

Or neither in particular?

What kinds of person is more likely to put you off?

1)
- someone who's predictable and constant, but also rigid as to rules to be followed, of "correct" and "incorrect" ways of doing things at home, work etc - the "only" way is his way
OR
- someone who's more flexible and easygoing than that, but is also a bit like a salesman or politician - seems to say whatever needs to be said to get his way, less reliable and predictable, a bit pushy on occasion


2)
- someone who's always full of ideas, and can see the alternative, creative, "fun" side in everything, but in personal relationships may seem a bit inconstant and unreliable, you may think that his word doesn't mean much

OR

- someone who's very reliable in personal relationships, very constant and loyal, but may appear unflexible and skeptical of new ideas the alternative sides of things, especially where ethics and relationships are concerned -

[Expat]

Expressing dissatisfaction to authority figures (or really in general) kind of bothers me. If I have a strong opposition to something that someone has, I will very frequently hold back the opinion. The only time I might express it is if I a personal comfort level for the person, and I feel like my dissent will not offend or cause them to get riled up. And even at that point, I (a minus trait, I will admit) still sugar coat the dissent, trying to point out potential positives in its light. (I've tried and continue to try to get better at this and consciously being more declarative)

Sounds more like Se as role function than as PoLR, but it's really thin.

The difference is that you're aware of your discomfort with Se but you mention it spontaneously as a problem and something you have to work on. The PoLR is more like something you wish you hadn't to concern yourself with at all and resent that others will expect it from you. If it's Ti, it would be related to the reasons that made you consider that engineering wasn't for you.

[Expat]

Before this recent self-examination, again, I used the MBTI to type myself. About a year or so ago, I found myself at a point where I wanted to as best as I could, objectively re-evaluate my strengths and weaknesses. At that time, I typed ISFJ. And I identified with the different descriptions I read about ISFJ.

Ok, since you have experiece in MBTI.

What exactly makes you identify more with the ISFJ than with the ENFP - in MBTI? What is it about ENFP descriptions that are not you?

[tereg]

How would others be more likely to describe you? As

- calm, balanced, "unflappable" OR
- mobile, impulsive

Or neither in particular?

I'd say neither in particular for this. But partially that's because I'm not sure what I'm putting off to others (because I sense that I might put off a little of both), and I don't generally hear one sentiment or the other from other people.

What kinds of person is more likely to put you off?

1)
- someone who's predictable and constant, but also rigid as to rules to be followed, of "correct" and "incorrect" ways of doing things at home, work etc - the "only" way is his way
OR
- someone who's more flexible and easygoing than that, but is also a bit like a salesman or politician - seems to say whatever needs to be said to get his way, less reliable and predictable, a bit pushy on occasion


2)
- someone who's always full of ideas, and can see the alternative, creative, "fun" side in everything, but in personal relationships may seem a bit inconstant and unreliable, you may think that his word doesn't mean much

OR

- someone who's very reliable in personal relationships, very constant and loyal, but may appear unflexible and skeptical of new ideas the alternative sides of things, especially where ethics and relationships are concerned -

If the choice is between 1) or 2), I would say 1) would put me more off.

I tried to put myself in positions where someone is communicating to me in those ways, and the choices in 1), I sense myself going into this "shell" mode. Or this kind of "fetal position" mode where I immediately withdraw discourse and just go along with what they're asking instead of trying to convince them of alternatives. And there would be a sort of... I can't really put my finger on the mood, but it feels internally sad in a way that I feel like I wouldn't be able soften the demand and as a result, immediately withdraw.

In 2), I tend to feel very sympathetic towards those people described in a), and I wouldn't really take much into account the unreliableness of the person. I would still very much enjoy being around those kinds of people.

In 2b) the loyalty would mean more to me more than the rigidness of thought. I feel respectful of that particular kind of rigidness, and if their view differs from mine, then I either accomodate it by being mindful of it and maybe adjusting my position towards theirs, or I will explain to them how I personally came to a different position than they did, in the hope that they would be able to see things in a new light. If they remain rigid, then I did my best, their opinion is their opinion, and I will not pursue it further.

What exactly makes you identify more with the ISFJ than with the ENFP - in MBTI? What is it about ENFP descriptions that are not you?

This is actually interesting because a lot of what MBTI ENFP says in descriptions I do relate a lot to.

The contradictions that I see are going to come from descriptions that I've read about ENFPs:

I would say that, in one regard, the details of day-to-day life are slightly more important.... but it's very close. If I know what I need to get done in a typical day, then I really try to focus on getting those things done. However, frequently things will distract me (things I might indulge in) and I will sometimes neglect to do something until later until I come to my senses and realize that I have things I want to get done. And when I realize that I've been indulgent, then I get upset at myself for being indulgent.

I also don't feel very comfortable with the notion of being able to get what I want. That irks me quite a bit. If I don't get my way in something, I tend to be more passive and will not be vocal about how I feel it conflicts internally (similar to the communication examples from 1) above).

At work, I tend to struggle with open-ended tasks. I struggled in classes if they gave us open-ended writing assignments.

"For homework tonight, you are to write a _ page paper about anything. It can be about anything you want."
"For homework tonight, you are to write a _ page paper about social strucuture dynamics as seen in Lord of the Flies"

Something like that. I would really struggle with the first one, but the second one would be much easier to do.

If someone says to me, "Hey, can you make me a web site?" usually I will answer it in this way: "Sure, what kind of web site are you looking to design?"

The narrower the topic, the easier it is for me to accomplish. When the topc is too broad, I get really frustrated.

I'm also not very fond of being the "advocate" type. I don't like... what I would say, jamming my opinion or what I think is the right way down people's throats. I much prefer allowing people the freedom to make the decision for themselves. Because it is their opinion and I can try to persuade their opinion, but I cannot make them change it. If they come to a different conclusion than me, so be it. They were presented with the evidence to the best of my ability and they have made their decision, I concede quickly. I'm not the type that won't be satisfied until they see it my way. I'm satisfied if I know that they are firm in their choice and if I believe any further discussion will go in circles.

So, generally speaking, I'm not that great at getting people to see things my way.

[tereg]

I'd like to take this time to say a big thank you to everyone that has contributed to this thread thus far.

I really appreciate all of your patience and your willingness to help me explore this, and I am very thankful for all of your help. Through this process I have been able to paint a clearer picture of myself than I did before I got here, and I seriously would have struggled to do it without the communal assistance here.

I hope that I can contribute just as much for others as you have contributed for me here.

Thank you all again so much.

[Mediator Kam]

I'd like to take this time to say a big thank you to everyone that has contributed to this thread thus far.

I really appreciate all of your patience and your willingness to help me explore this, and I am very thankful for all of your help. Through this process I have been able to paint a clearer picture of myself than I did before I got here, and I seriously would have struggled to do it without the communal assistance here.

I hope that I can contribute just as much for others as you have contributed for me here.

Thank you all again so much.

Come to the Introverted side, I have problems with open-ended assignments too.

[Expat]

If the choice is between 1) or 2), I would say 1) would put me more off.

No I mean, of the two choices within (1) and within (2), which two put you more off?

[tereg]

If the choice is between 1) or 2), I would say 1) would put me more off.

No I mean, of the two choices within (1) and within (2), which two put you more off?

Ohhh, ok.

For (1), wow... both would bother me internally quite a bit. But if I must choose between the two, I think the first choice would... but it's very close. I'm going to say the first one because of the strict adherence to their view of the "only way" vs. the more easygoing type. The easygoing type would be slightly annoying to me, but wouldn't anger me I don't think. (I could say "no" more easily to the salesman type than I would with the rigid type, though both would be difficult to say "no" to.)

For (2), the second one would. Again, the first one I would feel more sympathetic towards, and at times I might disregard the inconsistencies and unreliability and instead put the burden on my shoulders... so that might wear me out emotionally, but not really upset me. The second one I would be very welcoming of their loyalty, but I'd feel slightly put off if they have an idea that differs from mine, and they are more unflexible in their view of it. Eventually I would concede to "different strokes for different folks" and just accept the differences, but being aware of the difference would linger in my mind, I think. I'd secretly want them to adjust their position but realize that it's probably not going to happen unless I can come up with clear and convincing reasons why.

But then again... if I look at it through the prism of what feel like I really need and is missing within rather than how I'd internally feel, it changes slightly.

I think deep down I really want that discipline and unwavering, reliable, confident spirit in another person, even though at times it can put me off. As long as it's not in a forceful manner, then I am actually comfortable with it.

[Expat]

Well, your answers consistently point towards IEE rather than EII.

Of course, perhaps my descriptions of those types wasn't the best and may have been biased somehow.

To me, overall, everything points consistently to IEE over EII.

EDIT: but your last paragraph points towards EII, so -- ugh, I really can't decide for sure.

[tereg]

Of course, perhaps my descriptions of those types wasn't the best and may have been biased somehow.

I think I might have misinterpreted your original question...

If you're referring to Socionics ENFp descriptions, that's not what I used when I answered what part of ENFp desciptions are not me.

I thought you were asking what parts of MBTI ENFP descriptions don't apply to me.

I'm going to re-read the Socionics IEE desciption and write out things if I find something that isn't me.

[Phaedrus]

If you're referring to Socionics ENFp descriptions, that's not what I used when I answered what part of ENFp desciptions are not me.

I thought you were asking what parts of MBTI ENFP descriptions don't apply to me.

There is no relevant difference between the two. ENFPs and ENFps are the same, it's the same type. But if you know MBTT, you must be able to say whether you are an IJ or an EP. You can never be in any doubt about those two alternatives, because that doesn't make any sense. You may be in doubt about IJ or EJ, EP or IP, EP or EJ, IJ or IP -- but you can never seriously hesitate between two diametrically opposed temperaments. So, which of the four dichotimies do you identify with? (Remember also that they are essentially the same in Socionics, so you can't be an ISFJ or INFJ in MBTT and an ENFp in Socionics -- that's impossible.)

[Expat]

I thought you were asking what parts of MBTI ENFP descriptions don't apply to me.

That is exactly what I asked.

[tereg]

IJ:

• calm, balanced and inert
• "unflappable"
• rigid but not very fast gait
• may appear passive-aggressive
• usually very stable mood
• more reactive than active
• little inclination to fidget during long periods of inactivity

An IJ draws inner stability from a stable reality, especially as seen through his leading function. That makes him confident that things will probably remain as they are despite what he sees as minor disturbances; periods of clear upheaval are very disturbing and the individual is anxious that things will "settle down" one way or the other soon enough.

As introverts, IJs tend to be calm and relaxed about initiating relationships with other people, mostly assuming that others will take the initiative, but will be more inclined to try to make sure a relationship is maintained once established.

EP:

• flexible
• mobile
• impulsive, shifting from apparent inactivity to bursts of energy, often several times a day, showing impatience during them
• walk is energetic but "cat-like"
• often seems optimistic and open-minded
• entertains people easily and naturally
• inclined to fidget when forced to remain inactive for long periods

An EP is bothered by the lack of change, especially as seen through his leading function, since his personal preference is for change. That makes him impulsive, with sudden bursts of action, energy, or even just thought, as he tries to get his perceptions "moving".

As extroverts, EPs tend to be feel that it is up to them to initiate contacts with other people, and EPs in particular tend to feel quite natural in that role.

If the question is between IJ vs EP, then this analysis might seem a little unusual.

The bolded parts are parts I identify with, and I will use an examples to justify them.

For EP: My impulsive nature/being fidgety. I think this is what they're referring to when the description says "impulsive". I was making dinner last night and had the TV on. I was boiling some water, but as soon as I turned it on, I went into my bedroom and browsed these forums and listened to some music. Halfway into a song or whatever it was I was reading or listening to, I walked back into the living room (without turning off the music playing from my computer) after the water had been boiling for however long, maybe 5 minutes and started to make dinner. Then I'd go back into the bedroom and read some more/listen to some more music with the TV on in the other room as background noise.

I do a lot of this disjointed, multitasking impulsiveness when no one's around. And I do get fidgety when I'm inactive for too long. At work I'll work on a task (and I certainly can work on tasks for extended periods of time if there's continual progress) but then I'll find myself working on unrelated tasks and then come back around to the original task.

People who have seen me walk have noticed (or joked) that I have a faster-than-normal gait. I walk swiftly and with purpose, naturally.

I tend to think I'm open-minded, but I think the term is a bit vague, because there are times when I try to force open-mindedness, and other times I'm really curious and considerate about differing points of view. I don't know how to explain this adequately except to say sometimes my bias blinds me and I'll consider other points of view but I'm really being hard-headed... and then other times I do really listen to a differing point of view to naturally convince me of my logical error and I swallow my pride and I change. This might mean I'm not really open-minded at all... I'm not sure.


For IJ: Socially I prefer to have other people initiate contact. For me to initiate social contact feels a bit contrived, awkward and forced, honestly. I certainly have the capability of it, but it doesn't feel very natural to me.

I definitely see myself as passive-agressive (which I consider a huge minus), because of my innate stubbornness and inefficiency and because I don't outwardly express my frustrations in an aggressive way, but instead hold them in.

And I do tend to react to things more than I do to act upon things with vigor.


I think it's entirely possible when I typed MBTI ISFJ that I mistyped myself. I've mistyped myself several times throughout my life. That children's test that Dr. Meisgeier proctored for me, I came out INTP. But I was like, 8 or 9 when I took that, even though I clearly remember him stressing to me to answer how I am and not how I want to be. I've tested ESFJ before, ISFJ more recently and now INFJ. But in all of those previous typings, I can see how I was too heavily influenced by what I wanted to be. For instance, when I typed ESFJ, I really, REALLY wanted to be an E. I was probably 15 or 16 when I "typed" that. I clearly remember my dad (who I can't think of what type he is at the moment, don't ask why I just can't... if I had to guess MBTI typing, I'd say ENTJ) saying on several occasions that he thinks I'm a "shy-extravert" and an "abstract-rational", I'm pretty sure he's said that I'm a Keirseyan NT (Rational). When I look back on the ISFJ typing, it's entirely possible that I think I'm more stable than I actually am.

In fact when I was discussing this ISFJ typing with them, my mom and dad seemed to disagree with my "S-ness".

So, it's entirely possible that the ISFJ typing is not relevant at all, even though I identify with it, it might not be reality. Which for Phaedrus, I think it's more likely that I'm not an ISFJ who identifies with ENFP because of a mistype.

I'm trying to think of specific practical examples that might make this IJ/EP distinction clearer, but I can't.

[Phaedrus]

I think, tereg, that you should take a closer look at INFp as a possible type, and also try to find out which exact temperament you have. That problem is of course closely connected to the question whether you are really an extravert or an introvert. You might have an IP temperament, in which case you could be an INFp. Or you could have an EP temperament and perhaps be a shy ENFp. We know that both ENFps/ENFPs and ENTps/ENTPs may misidentify themselves as introverts sometimes. Based on V.I. only, I think that INFp is a not too unprobable type -- more likely than ENFp in fact. And, as I said, I don't think that your style of writing is typical of an ENFp.

[Slacker]

Again, you ignore function use for MBTI stuff and VI. Socionics is about what functions people use. He uses Ne and Fi. He doesn't like Se. How could an INFp not like Se?

[Phaedrus]

Again, you ignore function use for MBTI stuff and VI. Socionics is about what functions people use. He uses Ne and Fi. He doesn't like Se. How could an INFp not like Se?

That functions analysis is based on a not very massive amount of information using a rather unreliable method (as typing over the Internet always is). The picture might change if/when new information about tereg is added. At this stage the INFp hypothesis cannot be ruled out, because there are some rather strong indications pointing in that direction too.