Differences between EII-INFj and IEE-ENFp

[stanprollyright]

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but I view as a function that tends to make people quiet--coming up with ideas/recognizing potential/coming up with and filtering through possibilities. And I see as a function that could potentially make a person seem extraverted--relating to others.

Not necessarily: Ne is an extraverted fuction because it relates to potentials in the external world, and Fi is introverted because it focuses on internal feelings.

[UDP]

The difference, basically, lies in temperments and whether or not you are overall rational or irrational.

There is a big difference between IP and EJ in terms of energy levels, so that should be a part of Aiss' answer. Especially with Si polr, ENTjs tend to have a certain restlessness about them, and a fidgeting to do something. That does not necessarily mean social extraversion, but more a drive to spur things on or 'move forward with things', it's part of being Te dominant. IPs on the other hand are much more passive in their take on the world, more contemplative and typically less directive.

You could say there are similar differences between EP and IJ temperments for ENFp and INFj ; I guess the difference here would be exemplified in EPs irrational swoops and fluctuations of energy, and IJ being more consistent, having a sort of set amount of energy to expend for things (which often includes duration to socialize or put up with other people, but not necessarily), and then going into recharging. EPs on the other hand frequently have a more sporadic and overall higher mean energy level.

And again, don't read too much into "subtypes" when it comes to simply determining your actual socionics type - try to understand whether you are rational or not. (Rationality isn't just judgmental either, because a lot of IEEs have plenty of judgments about other people.).

Consider also the nature of what your dual would be, in terms of complimentary temperments - would your dual have more or less energy? Would your dual be rational or irrational? Keep in mind that socionics duality implies similar rationality but dissimilar temperments - so IP and EP, IJ and EJ.


Those are some 'tips and tricks' for determining people's types in such a situation.

[Beautiful sky]

Nice to meet you too Maritsa!

When I think of how I use , I think that it comes from more of an active theorizing and brainstorming that goes in a stream of consciousness direction from one topic to a related topic and to another topic. It has a very loose feel to me.

Since I have the TV Show 'Lost' as my avatar, I find that a lot of my love of that show has to do with -based themes. I love speculating in my head as to what the grand theories that form the foundation of this show will turn out to be. Who is good....who is evil, etc. How the whole storyline will emerge. All this is a ton of active speculating that I do to keep me fascinated with the show.

I actually think that even the word 'fascinated' is a word that describes my activities. I am very curious, enthusiastic, etc. for what dynamics emerge in my outer environment. A love of checking out any new and interesting thoughts and ideas really show up here. Also, I am not always interested in surface activities (although I can be as well), but also on more theoretical ideas that lie beyond the surface. A love of mazes, maps, and puzzles come to mind.

So this is my world. It isn't as second nature as my inner values and feelings, but it still forms a lot of the hobbies and passions (including typology) that I have.

Hope this helps!

That my dear, is NOT Ne

[UDP]

If you haven't figured it out by now, a lot of the things Maritsa says are just weird. So, you can engage her in discussion, but it's not always...fruitful. That's all I'll say.

[Beautiful sky]

If you haven't figured it out by now, a lot of the things Maritsa says are just weird. So, you can engage her in discussion, but it's not always...fruitful. That's all I'll say.

Why do you say such a thing?

Ne must get information from outside to survive as a function...it looks for information from outside sources, like books articles etc, it's not creativity, anyone can be creative in different ways.

[Aiss]

The difference, basically, lies in temperments and whether or not you are overall rational or irrational.

There is a big difference between IP and EJ in terms of energy levels, so that should be a part of Aiss' answer. Especially with Si polr, ENTjs tend to have a certain restlessness about them, and a fidgeting to do something. That does not necessarily mean social extraversion, but more a drive to spur things on or 'move forward with things', it's part of being Te dominant. IPs on the other hand are much more passive in their take on the world, more contemplative and typically less directive.

It's IP for me, I just mentioned it to show that even though it'll probably never be clear, it isn't uncommon - i.e. "it isn't just you, there's no perfect explanation". Thank you for your input though.

Consider also the nature of what your dual would be, in terms of complimentary temperments - would your dual have more or less energy? Would your dual be rational or irrational? Keep in mind that socionics duality implies similar rationality but dissimilar temperments - so IP and EP, IJ and EJ.

That's a good point, especially about energy levels, but also about taking initiative. It wouldn't probably work for everyone, but it's another thing that does for me.

[Aiss]

Ne must get information from outside to survive as a function...it looks for information from outside sources, like books articles etc, it's not creativity, anyone can be creative in different ways.

*khemTekhem*

[Beautiful sky]

Humanist EII
Psychologist is IEE


Secondary extraverted intuition (the types Analyst and Humanist, XXX-intuitive introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Critic and Lyricist with the dominant introverted intuition) for their being modest intellectuals who do not strive “into the center of events”, their certain idealism [although this is also true of LSE-the dual of EII]. However, the difference is remarkable: both Analyst and Humanist are consequent in their thoughts, often have well-structured speech (and often prefer to communicate in written than in spoken). They are rigid in their everyday life: while Critic and Lyricist can well adapt to changing circumstances, Analyst and Humanist rather suffer when plans change. And they both believe that people are full of positive potential, which should be discovered and developed [LSE does not discover the emotional aspects of the individual and develops them].

Secondary extraverted ethic (the types Lyricist and Mediator, XXX-ethical introverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Humanist and Conservator with the dominant introverted ethic) for their strive for good relations with other people, very mild and comfortable manner of communication. However, there is a difference: both Lyricist and Mediator are emotionally active and even often try to awake emotions in other people. By contrast, Humanist and Conservator rather strive to suppress excessive emotions, to release other people from redundant, unnecessary emotions.



Secondary introverted ethic (the types Psychologist and Politician, XXX-ethical extraverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Mentor and Bonvivant with the dominant extraverted ethic), because they are active, ever-smiling, often among people. However, their emotionality is quite different than that of rational extraverted ethic types. Both Psychologist and Politician do not like excessive emotions and try to negotiate rather than to awake excitement.

Secondary introverted intuition (the types Enterpriser and Mentor, XXX-intuitive extraverts)

They may be misperceived for the quasi-identical types (Seeker and Psychologist with the dominant extraverted intuition) for their intellectualism and ingenuity, for the abstract manner of explaining their views, for speaking a lot about “possibilities” and future perspectives, for having a lot of ideas concerning how thing should go on correctly.

To understand the difference, let us consider a row of people representing the types Enterpriser and Mentor, i.e. with introverted intuition as the secondary function. This function entails certain kind of “prophet-like” or “preacher-like” behavior. Such people believe in magnificent perspectives, and they try to transfer their belief to other people, even when the situation is really bad and gloomy. ******, Reagan, Martin Luther King, Ceausescu, Trotsky, Goebbels, John F. Kennedy, Boris Yeltsin, Tony Blair, Che Guevara – some of these politicians had bad reputation, some are adored and admired, but they all had something important, a common trait that united them all – their “prophet-like” behavior, their capability to “infect” people with belief in the future, even when several minutes ago people were much dissatisfied of them.

[Beautiful sky]

*khemTekhem*

LOLOL
Is this who I think it is?
I think you should invest in ISTj

[Aiss]

LOLOL
Is this who I think it is?
I think you should invest in ISTj

"who?"

I don't argue that Ne is often the curiosity/motivation behind the research, but what you describe is closer to Te, especially in LIE and your own favorite type, your dual, LSE:

"Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. "

[Beautiful sky]

"who?"

I don't argue that Ne is often the curiosity/motivation behind the research, but what you describe is closer to Te, especially in LIE and your own favorite type, your dual, LSE:

"Extroverted logic as base function is manifested as a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. "

Where is the quote from?

[Aiss]

Where is the quote from?

Your not-so-favorite source, that is, wikisocion.

[Beautiful sky]

Your not-so-favorite source, that is, wikisocion.

Oh great, well, that's one of the reasons why my duals mistype themselves as ENFp or ENTp...

Te is this:

It estimates everything in terms of efficiency: not abstract analysis, but "how to make it work?", and not systems, but methods. They are energetic, active, and mobile. As scientists, they are strong in improvement of methods, but often they choose a business career. However, people who work together with them, often blame these types of being "too dry, cold-hearted", even in spite of their high emotionality. In general, this type of thinking may be called “algorithmic”.

Although the quote does apply to LSE; but only after Te. Ordering of priority of functions is model A.

[Aiss]

Oh great, well, that's one of the reasons why my duals mistype themselves as ENFp or ENTp...

Te is this:

It estimates everything in terms of efficiency: not abstract analysis, but "how to make it work?", and not systems, but methods. They are energetic, active, and mobile. As scientists, they are strong in improvement of methods, but often they choose a business career. However, people who work together with them, often blame these types of being "too dry, cold-hearted", even in spite of their high emotionality. In general, this type of thinking may be called “algorithmic”.

Although the quote does apply to LSE; but only after Te. Ordering of priority of functions is model A.

All of this is also included in wikisocion descriptions of these types - I quoted only relevant part. So the wikisocion is wrong, and people get mistyped because of it?

[Beautiful sky]

All of this is also included in wikisocion descriptions of these types - I quoted only relevant part. So the wikisocion is wrong, and people get mistyped because of it?

No, people don't read other types because they want to settle on one they like, maybe, or don't understand the elements independent of type descriptions? But then I should have said that not everyone mistypes themselves.

But, you have, and that's very obvious to me in your writing and questioning style.

[Aiss]

No, people don't read other types because they want to settle on one they like, maybe, or don't understand the elements independent of type descriptions? But then I should have said that not everyone mistypes themselves.

But, you have, and that's very obvious to me in your writing and questioning style.

Replied elsewhere, although I must have quoted as you edited the post.

[jewels]

as for the subtypes for IEE, yeah I'd say Fi is a bit more people-oriented and Ne is more idea-focused. So the Fi's, in my opinion, come across as warmer and more concerned with people. The Ne are also like that, but have more of a cold layer.

INFjs seem like they get more upset if things aren't planned. I like an initial plan, such as a meeting place/time, and beyond that don't care what happens or if everything changes. Where as I've noticed INFjs like to know what to expect most of the time and are bothered if the plan changes.

INFjs can actually come across as almost goofy or more social than me sometimes. They're also more likely to express strong opinions about, let's say, supporting a certain cause. I'd be less likely to do that.

[Mattie]

For another perspective... To my understanding, subtypes aren't cannon, therefore not essential to your understanding of Socionics. I actually dislike the subtype hypothesis because it basically gives people excuses when they feel like they don't neatly fit into one type. It's my opinion, but I suggest to give that thought a gander. If you cannot find someone's type without a subtype, it might mean you're allowing too many individualistic personality traits get in the way of your typing.

[UDP]

Why do you say such a thing?

Just to sort of warn about the back and forth that would probably follow (like just now with you an Aiss here), and that the productivity of such 'dialogues' is questionable.

Just saying it for new people, just in case. That's all.

[Beautiful sky]

Just to sort of warn about the back and forth that would probably follow (like just now with you an Aiss here), and that the productivity of such 'dialogues' is questionable.

Just saying it for new people, just in case. That's all.

Why don't you type him?

[Suz]

Not necessarily: Ne is an extraverted fuction because it relates to potentials in the external world, and Fi is introverted because it focuses on internal feelings.

Stan you completely missed the point of my post. Reread it.

I know Ne is an extraverted function looking at potentials in the external world! My point is that in examining the external world and pondering those potentials concerned with the external world and coming up with ideas for opportunities, one becomes quieter and more introverted in the general sense of the word.

And duh, I know Fi is an introverted function and deals with internal, i.e. personal, feelings. Internal feelings are how one feels about someone else. It is you looking at someone else and deciding how they make you feel, or how they are feeling inside. hence an introverted function (it's about what's happening inside). But how they make you feel also depends on how much they like you and how they are feeling inside can be altered, so Fi compels one to verbalize, emote, relate ones feelings and receive others' personal feelings. Since using Fi often requires Fe and relating to people, Fi primary people will perhaps appear more extraverted in the general sense.

[Suz]

For another perspective... To my understanding, subtypes aren't cannon, therefore not essential to your understanding of Socionics. I actually dislike the subtype hypothesis because it basically gives people excuses when they feel like they don't neatly fit into one type. It's my opinion, but I suggest to give that thought a gander. If you cannot find someone's type without a subtype, it might mean you're allowing too many individualistic personality traits get in the way of your typing.

I agree with this actually.

[UDP]

@Maritsa

I don't particularly care to go around the forum trying to type people. It's somewhat obnoxious to me - I've been through it plenty. And I think trying to type someone only by how they post on the forum is misleading, especially for people don't particularly understand how socionics works.

If the original poster wants my opinion, OR if I happen to feel like typing him because it becomes interesting or curious to me, then we can start talking via PM or even more preferably using instant messaging. Right now neither he nor I have shown initiative to that end. Either way, I don't feel I have enough data about him to type him right now, and it would be rather superficial to type him based on 5 posts on this forum.

Furthermore, this guy didn't want to asked to be typed and said he already understood the theory, but wanted pointers about how to differentiate between two types - that's what I provided in my post.


Perhaps, Maritsa, you should focus more on building knowledge and helping people understand socionics, as opposed to "typing people" or displaying whatever your opinion of them is. I think it would be a lot more useful, honestly. (And make people less annoyed with you, too)

[Lobo]

Why so much arguing when you can't really change someone's mind? or why would you even want to?

[Beautiful sky]

@Maritsa
Perhaps, Maritsa, you should focus more on building knowledge and helping people understand socionics, as opposed to "typing people" or displaying whatever your opinion of them is. I think it would be a lot more useful, honestly. (And make people less annoyed with you, too)

How do you suppose I do this?

[UDP]

How do you suppose I do this?

I'll give you a hint: you don't do it by simply telling people what their types are.



And here's a quote from your dual in literature:

Sherlock Holmes: [to Watson] Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.

I'll put it in my signature, just for you.

[Beautiful sky]

I'll give you a hint: you don't do it by simply telling people what their types are.



And here's a quote from your dual in literature:


I'll put it in my signature, just for you.

Thank you.
I will think about how to use the information you gave me.

[mikesilb]

Why do you say such a thing?

Ne must get information from outside to survive as a function...it looks for information from outside sources, like books articles etc, it's not creativity, anyone can be creative in different ways.

Honestly, that is exactly what I do. This info is coming from the outside sources (rather than from an internal source). So I honestly don't see how what I described couldn't be . I never implied that = creativity. To me, it is the curiosity to take new material in and derive patterns from the outer events that stimulate it.

[Beautiful sky]

Honestly, that is exactly what I do. This info is coming from the outside sources (rather than from an internal source). So I honestly don't see how what I described couldn't be . I never implied that = creativity. To me, it is the curiosity to take new material in and derive patterns from the outer events that stimulate it.

What sources? What do you read?

[mikesilb]

The difference, basically, lies in temperments and whether or not you are overall rational or irrational.

You could say there are similar differences between EP and IJ temperments for ENFp and INFj ; I guess the difference here would be exemplified in EPs irrational swoops and fluctuations of energy, and IJ being more consistent, having a sort of set amount of energy to expend for things (which often includes duration to socialize or put up with other people, but not necessarily), and then going into recharging. EPs on the other hand frequently have a more sporadic and overall higher mean energy level.

I think that in my case I..j fits better. While I can show deep enthusiasm and passion when I communicate, I still feel that it is more 'controlled' in most situations. I have this internal sense of when it is OK for me to let loose and when it is OK for me to remain more cordial, controlled, and/or consistent. So my gut feeling is that my main temperament has more of that control.

I also feel that I can be more selective/picky of certain interests and less willing to make sporadic changes on a dime in the way that I might expect many E..p types to act. While I do admire some level of flexibility in a given process, I have noticed that if the plans change in midstream (or near the end) of a process, I freak out. It almost feels as if the floor simply drops. I would not say that I like everything ordered and planned from beginning to end, because that simply isn't true in my case. However, some baseline level of security is good. I attribute this also to my Enneagram 6(w7) type, which is all about having some basal level of order/security before subsequently improvising in a more spontaneous way.

I have found that it is easier for E..p types to expand their horizons while I..js need a bit of a push to make this expansion. On the whole, I'd say that I might tend to stay contained within my own selective interests and hobbies and may need a bit of a nudge to allow my interests to expand. It is like I enjoy having a select few interests (and friends) rather than a wide range of interests, friends, and the like.

So in a nutshell, I think that I..j > E..p in terms of my own temperament assessment.

And again, don't read too much into "subtypes" when it comes to simply determining your actual socionics type - try to understand whether you are rational or not. (Rationality isn't just judgmental either, because a lot of IEEs have plenty of judgments about other people.).

I fully agree...and I would give the edge to a dominant rational type as my #1 function (in terms of type). Only after I have determined this would I even consider subtypes (which I tend to think brings me more in the direction of the 'creative function', , rather than the 'base function', .

Consider also the nature of what your dual would be, in terms of complimentary temperments - would your dual have more or less energy? Would your dual be rational or irrational? Keep in mind that socionics duality implies similar rationality but dissimilar temperments - so IP and EP, IJ and EJ.

As a newbie to Socionics (although I know the theory completely), it is hard for me to pinpoint exactly which type my dual might be. Probably this is because I can see a connection to so many types that it is really hard to identify that perfectly complementing type that a dual might be. This part is a harder thing for me to assess (although I will say that I feel most comfortable quadra-wise with Delta...I'll probably get into this at a later point).

[Beautiful sky]

I think that in my case I..j fits better. While I can show deep enthusiasm and passion when I communicate, I still feel that it is more 'controlled' in most situations. I have this internal sense of when it is OK for me to let loose and when it is OK for me to remain more cordial, controlled, and/or consistent. So my gut feeling is that my main temperament has more of that control.

I also feel that I can be more selective/picky of certain interests and less willing to make sporadic changes on a dime in the way that I might expect many E..p types to act. While I do admire some level of flexibility in a given process, I have noticed that if the plans change in midstream (or near the end) of a process, I freak out. It almost feels as if the floor simply drops. I would not say that I like everything ordered and planned from beginning to end, because that simply isn't true in my case. However, some baseline level of security is good. I attribute this also to my Enneagram 6(w7) type, which is all about having some basal level of order/security before subsequently improvising in a more spontaneous way.

I have found that it is easier for E..p types to expand their horizons while I..js need a bit of a push to make this expansion. On the whole, I'd say that I might tend to stay contained within my own selective interests and hobbies and may need a bit of a nudge to allow my interests to expand. It is like I enjoy having a select few interests (and friends) rather than a wide range of interests, friends, and the like.

So in a nutshell, I think that I..j > E..p in terms of my own temperament assessment.



I fully agree...and I would give the edge to a dominant rational type as my #1 function (in terms of type). Only after I have determined this would I even consider subtypes (which I tend to think brings me more in the direction of the 'creative function', , rather than the 'base function', .



As a newbie to Socionics (although I know the theory completely), it is hard for me to pinpoint exactly which type my dual might be. Probably this is because I can see a connection to so many types that it is really hard to identify that perfectly complementing type that a dual might be. This part is a harder thing for me to assess (although I will say that I feel most comfortable quadra-wise with Delta...I'll probably get into this at a later point).

Have you considered how you deal with TIME management in your emmidiate and outside environment?

[mikesilb]

What sources? What do you read?

It isn't what I read....it is more what I interact with (like a sponge). I have no idea what outer source might be influencing me at any given time. It may even feel somewhat random how at one point, Influence X will affect me, and then at a later point, Influence Y will do it.

The sources could be a book, a quote, a person, a computer game, a TV show, the Internet, NBA Basketball, my family, and anything else under the sun.

To me, the integration of these sources in novel and exciting ways is precisely what is about.

[Beautiful sky]

It isn't what I read....it is more what I interact with (like a sponge). I have no idea what outer source might be influencing me at any given time. It may even feel somewhat random how at one point, Influence X will affect me, and then at a later point, Influence Y will do it.

The sources could be a book, a quote, a person, a computer game, a TV show, the Internet, NBA Basketball, my family, and anything else under the sun.

To me, the integration of these sources in novel and exciting ways is precisely what is about.

Okay...please consider and what it means to you please and please tell me how you use this function and how you rely on others for it.

[mikesilb]

OK before I go any further...I would like feedback (and not just from Maritsa) about whether I am describing properly or whether I am way off here.

One person's feedback (controversial or not) will not be enough to change my perception of which type I am or which functions I am using in more of a dominant (or not-so-dominant) way.

I do a lot of consensus seeking, and so the only way that I would refute my type would be is if it was glaringly obvious (by the people who make up this consensus) that I am mishandling the theory. Frankly, I don't feel that I have distorted the theory yet, and so I am not ready to say that I have mistyped myself.

What do other people think about this whole thing thus far?? (I am not asking to be typed. I am only asking whether or not I am simply distorting the definition of INFj, ENFp, , or ).

[UDP]

So in a nutshell, I think that I..j > E..p in terms of my own temperament assessment.

In a very limited appraisal of you thus far, I'd guess IJ>EP myself. But that isn't saying much.

[Beautiful sky]

OK before I go any further...I would like feedback (and not just from Maritsa) about whether I am describing properly or whether I am way off here.

One person's feedback (controversial or not) will not be enough to change my perception of which type I am or which functions I am using in more of a dominant (or not-so-dominant) way.

I do a lot of consensus seeking, and so the only way that I would refute my type would be is if it was glaringly obvious (by the people who make up this consensus) that I am mishandling the theory. Frankly, I don't feel that I have distorted the theory yet, and so I am not ready to say that I have mistyped myself.

What do other people think about this whole thing thus far?? (I am not asking to be typed. I am only asking whether or not I am simply distorting the definition of INFj, ENFp, , or ).

I would like to hear about how you use Si, thank you.

[mikesilb]

In a very limited appraisal of you thus far, I'd guess IJ>EP myself. But that isn't saying much.

I agree...it is early (in terms of my postings) and it would be hard to assess a total stranger this early in the game. Hopefully, a more apparent determination will unfold as I am on here longer.

[mikesilb]

I would like to hear about how you use Si, thank you.

In due time, I will respond. However, I first want to get a sense of where others are with this thread (and my responses thus far). Afterwards, I will proceed with the and time-management discussions.

[stanprollyright]

Stan you completely missed the point of my post. Reread it.

I know Ne is an extraverted function looking at potentials in the external world! My point is that in examining the external world and pondering those potentials concerned with the external world and coming up with ideas for opportunities, one becomes quieter and more introverted in the general sense of the word.

And duh, I know Fi is an introverted function and deals with internal, i.e. personal, feelings. Internal feelings are how one feels about someone else. It is you looking at someone else and deciding how they make you feel, or how they are feeling inside. hence an introverted function (it's about what's happening inside). But how they make you feel also depends on how much they like you and how they are feeling inside can be altered, so Fi compels one to verbalize, emote, relate ones feelings and receive others' personal feelings. Since using Fi often requires Fe and relating to people, Fi primary people will perhaps appear more extraverted in the general sense.

I see what you're trying to say and it just isn't true. Ne types are just as likely to share their ideas and opportunities as keep them to themselves, and they get excited easily and motivated into action by their ideas. Fi types are concerned with carefully cultivating a select few relationships, choosing words and actions carefully. This gives them the appearance of being reserved, and they become more open and "extraverted" only around the few people they are comfortable with.

[Beautiful sky]

In due time, I will respond. However, I first want to get a sense of where others are with this thread (and my responses thus far). Afterwards, I will proceed with the and time-management discussions.

The fact that you are doing one thing at a time is sort of not like me, I do 10 things at a time. It's not so much of ADD, it's just that there are a lot of boxes open in my head and they are each being filled with information, constantly. There are a few times when I can actually unplug the cord. Time management is character of ESTj-"this is not the time for that, that will come up later."