Learning how functions operate vs. reading profiles and mistypings

[Angel Alliterator]

I recently been doing a lot of research on the functions (which I've never done before) and when you finally learn it and look at how each function operates on each block your type becomes all the more clear to you (or at least to me).


It amazes me how much clear things are now that I've done the actual research as oppose to just reading descriptions.

Based on the research and how the functions operate within the Ego, Super-Ego, Super id and id blocs I came to the conclusion of either ENFP or ENTP.

How in the world did I ever thought I was an ENFJ all this time is beyond me!

Did you recognized (or rather did you have clarity) after reading how the functions operate in Socionics after struggling with just reading descriptions only?

Are there any materials that can describe how the Enneagram work in such exquisite detail like Socionics?


I don't know, they are Quasi-identical so mistyping is possible.

I think that because I see myself as an actor or dramatic of some sort and reading ENFJ descriptions I though I was.

But as I read the functions (of the ENFJ) I was just so stunned at how much I am *not* an ENFJ. This has been my main jungian type for almost two years, so this was indeed a surprise.

But it's true, and BTW I can see now why people have so many complaints of the ENFJ (having Fi and Ne in the id block? Sheesh! Talk about malicious).

Though of course all the functions in the id block bring forth any type into bad light, but ENFJs (along with ENTp, ENTj, and even ISTp) id block functions really stood out for me.

Then of course I judge the SUPER-id block (which is like the unconscious desires of people) and the Super-Ego functions (their weakness, basically) and that really hammered home that I was not (and never will be!) an ENFJ (nor ESFP or ISFJ or ESTP).

When I research the functions of the ENFp, it was clear as day, could relate to the weaknesses found in the Super-Ego block, the unconscious desires of the Super-id, and even the (which was a delightful surprise) idiosyncrasies found in the id block (hear I thought I was the only one who did that *thing* that the ENFps do when using its 8th function in the id block).

ENTp is somewhat similar with a couple of differences (hence why its my second guess in relation to my type).

[JuJu]

When I first started posting here, I thought that I was ENFj as well--based primarily on typings from ppl here, e.g. Dioklecian, etc.

After I learned more about Socionics, IEE became pretty clear.

Initially, I had trouble id'ing my type mostly because I was raised environments thick with Se... I believed that I valued it.

ESFp is the type that fits me 2nd best.

[JuJu]

i remember something about you and LIE from a while ago.

me, dee?

ILE was suggested for me, I remember... If LIE was, I'm not sure that I saw the post.

[mikemex]

Keep in mind that belonging to a type means to be in any place within a range of possibilities.

[JuJu]

mikemex, do you mean, e.g., that as Fi-IEE you're "within a range of possibilities" between IEE and SEE?

I guess I'd just like you to elaborate on that statement, if possible. Thanks.

[tiny_dancer]

I think in the beginning it was easier for me to identify with the MBTTI descriptions of ENFj, but once I started nitpicking the details of the description, the differences were there. I'm not so much a details person There are some descriptions of ENFp that sound more like we're a super-outgoing entertainer.. which I'm not. But yeah, the functions make it easier to figure things out. I'm slowly learning to pinpoint functional preferences in what people say. Not something I'm used to since I'm usually wrapped up in my head, even when I'm trying not to be.