Guess the ENFP and ESFJ description

[Jarno]

Since you guys seem to think there is no difference or the types can be confused, here's a little test for you guys.

I have two descriptions, ENFP and ESFJ. Guess which one is which. Remember these are descriptions from an MBTI book, but from my point of view they can be easely typed with the use of socionics IM. Showing that MBTI and socionics don't differ that much!

Let's hear it...

[Jarno]

1)

This type is first and foremost energized by new ideas and possibilities. Outgoing friendly and talkative, they love being around people and often have a large and varied assortment of friends and acquaintances. These types are usually quick and clever and commonly use language to capture people's attention and entertain them as well as to express their creative offbeat personalities. They like to tell stories jokes and use puns and plays on words. Naturally irreverent, they usually speak rapidly their language is peppered with humor and metaphors, and they may even swear more often than some other types. Insatiably curious, these types are quick to strike up conversations with strangers, ask lots of questions and tend to finish other peoples sentences. Their conversation can be very scattered as they move from one thought to the next without finishing the first as new inspriations strike them. With regard to appearance, these types often have an original artsy look and dress more for themselves than for others or to make a statement.

[Jarno]

2)

These types are perhaps the most friendly and outgoing of all the sixteen types. They are supremely helpful to others in a myriad of real and concrete ways. Usually polite and somewhat proper, these types are also physically demonstrative, pumping your hand when shaking it, touching an arm or shoulder when making a point, or even giving bear hugs when appropiate. They wear their emotions on their sleeves and their faces usually provide an accurate reflection of their feelings. Their language reflects their strongly held beliefs and values; they may use the word 'should' a lot and freely offer opinions and reactions to everything around them. These types are often the first to volunteer when something needs to be done and tend to take on projects with gusto and purpose. This can sometimes mean they may act somewhat controlling, determined to be sure every detail is done the way they think is best. They often see things in terms of black and white and speak and act with great conviction.

[Simon Ssmall]

1 - ENFP and more likely ENFp however do you really think that this ENFP description captures ENFp in socionics?

[Gilly]

1 is ENFP but could easily be seen as an Alpha Extrovert.

[Jarno]

1 is ENFP but could easily be seen as an Alpha Extrovert.

until you read the alpha extrovert descriptions, then you can easely distinguish between them. But if you really think that 1 might be ESFJ then I find that extremely strange. The first line just screams Ne. It's almost litteraly what Ne encompasses.

[Jarno]

1 - ENFP and more likely ENFp however do you really think that this ENFP description captures ENFp in socionics?

Well for an MBTI description, which is written by someone who has never heard of the information elements in socionics, it contains a lot of stuff that is related to information elements. I think that is rather impressive.

[krieger]

until you read the alpha extrovert descriptions, then you can easely distinguish between them. But if you really think that 1 might be ESFJ then I find that extremely strange. The first line just screams Ne. It's almost litteraly what Ne encompasses.

That's because the description was written by a person that started out with the view that ENFp is primarily defined by dominance of Ne's "interest in ideas". Its circularity at its worst.

[Aleksei]

1)

This type is first and foremost energized by new ideas and possibilities. Outgoing friendly and talkative, they love being around people and often have a large and varied assortment of friends and acquaintances. These types are usually quick and clever and commonly use language to capture people's attention and entertain them as well as to express their creative offbeat personalities. They like to tell stories jokes and use puns and plays on words. Naturally irreverent, they usually speak rapidly their language is peppered with humor and metaphors, and they may even swear more often than some other types. Insatiably curious, these types are quick to strike up conversations with strangers, ask lots of questions and tend to finish other peoples sentences. Their conversation can be very scattered as they move from one thought to the next without finishing the first as new inspriations strike them. With regard to appearance, these types often have an original artsy look and dress more for themselves than for others or to make a statement.

2)

These types are perhaps the most friendly and outgoing of all the sixteen types. They are supremely helpful to others in a myriad of real and concrete ways. Usually polite and somewhat proper, these types are also physically demonstrative, pumping your hand when shaking it, touching an arm or shoulder when making a point, or even giving bear hugs when appropiate. They wear their emotions on their sleeves and their faces usually provide an accurate reflection of their feelings. Their language reflects their strongly held beliefs and values; they may use the word 'should' a lot and freely offer opinions and reactions to everything around them. These types are often the first to volunteer when something needs to be done and tend to take on projects with gusto and purpose. This can sometimes mean they may act somewhat controlling, determined to be sure every detail is done the way they think is best. They often see things in terms of black and white and speak and act with great conviction.

1) Obvious ENFP
2) Obvious ESFJ

[Azeroffs]

TBH, I think correlating descriptions is evidence enough that the systems are basically the same. There's more room for interpretation when it come to dichotomies.

[Aleksei]

evidence?



more evidence?

Just staying within the realm of logical deduction, if they were perfectly equivalent there'd be no point in their even be separate. They'd be two facets of the same systems. They are not, so logically they must be at least somewhat different.

But let's move beyond that -- the proof is in the proverbial pudding. Let's take a look at the Ti description, for a quick example:

as a base (1st) function (LII and LSI)

The individual views reality through the lens of logic, immediately recognizing the correctness and appropriateness of things and their proper place in reality and in his system of views and behavior. He freely makes logical assertions, often exaggerated, about new information and experience. He holds highest those rules to which exceptions do not exist, and is a habitual critic of people or things that don't follow a set of rules, whether they are those accepted by the community, or his own, or even the other person's. Although he is able to adopt others' rules, his own are always the last word, and these are subject to continual refinement.
Often seen as "demanding", due to high standards.
as a creative (2nd) function (ILE and SLE)

The individual easily generates logical systems and formulations to explain a set of phenomena that he has experienced or studied. However, these logical systems or explanations are not viewed as permanent or all-encompassing, but can be improved upon or even discarded as new experience and information is added.
as a role (3rd) function (ESI and EII)

The individual is able to talk about things from a dispassionate academic or theoretical point of view for brief periods of time, but seems overly bookish when doing so and tends to grows tense. When feeling obliged to justify logically a personal decision taken for reasons determined by , the individual attempts to do so but grows quickly annoyed especially if the inconsistency in the logical argument is pointed out. He then either explains the ethical motivation or avoids the issue altogether.
as a vulnerable (4th) function (SEE and IEE)

The individual has a tendency to either completely reject or completely embrace a source of theoretical knowledge, but does not like to reveal the source or his adherence to it.
He prefers to limit the number of theoretical categories he works with and tends to see new terminology, systems, and rules as being arbitrary and unnecessary until he at last discovers their necessity for himself through extensive personal experience.
He may be able to express his views clearly when given the time, but he is not prepared to deal with people who challenge his views and draw him into logical arguments and disputes. For this reason, he is reluctant to publicize new determinations and opinions until he is absolutely sure that they are right and that he can support them thoroughly to anyone who challenges them.
as a suggestive (5th) function (ESE and EIE)

The individual has great admiration for people with well-developed systems of views. He especially likes clear and concise explanations of concepts, rather than a lot of background information about them that is not directly pertinent. He wants his actions to make sense, and thus needs external assurance that the conceptual understanding behind them is correct. If he cannot find a source of certainty, he may become flustered and unable to act rationally at all.
as a mobilizing (6th) function (SEI and IEI)

The individual seeks clarity in his system of beliefs and understanding and enjoys entertaining new concepts and being included in philosophical discussions where new concepts and systems of thought are introduced. He is uncertain of the logical clarity backing his actions, and thus seeks external assistance in attaining a degree of reasonable competence in this realm. Structure is sought as more of a means to an end, a background guide to facilitate the growth of the individual's main goal.
as an ignoring (7th) function (LIE and LSE)

The individual understands easily, but is largely indifferent to, discussions that focus on the internal logic of ideas and systems. The individual perceives such logical systems as largely worthless to his goals and finds them completely uninteresting and unproductive.
as a demonstrative (8th) function (ILI and SLI)

The individual often criticizes others' views from a logical standpoint, picking apart statements and postulates and showing that they are logically flawed. However, he does not choose to do this excessively and does not expect that reality can be accurately expressed in a neat logical systematic anyway.

Then let's look at the MBTI description of the function.

Introverted Thinking often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using introverted Thinking is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it. It also involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a “leverage point” that will fix problems with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to evaluate the likely accuracy of what’s observed.

Notice how much shorter it is? And how it doesn't differentiate between positions in a person's type? That would be because MBTI lacks Freudian conscience blocks (Ego, Super-Id, Id, et al), and merely describes functions by descending order of preference (pure Jung as opposed to Jung + Freud). Therefore, MBTI is an entirely distinct system.

You lose.

TBH, I think correlating descriptions is evidence enough that the systems are basically the same.

Not really, because 1) general MBTI descriptions are fundamentally off the mark and extremely shallow, and 2) the systems have different functions, and 3) they actually don't all have different descriptions. SLE and SEE are so different from their MBTI counterparts (ESTP and ESFP) it's not even funny. LII also doesn't really fit most INTJs very well -- it's more of an INTP-ish type. Neither does ESFJ fit ESE too well, because of how wildly different Si is between the systems. ESI has a similar problem, because Se (Socionics) is more equivalent to Se + Te (MBTI). It fits Si + Te (narrowly), but not Si + Fe.

[redbaron]

2)

These types are perhaps the most friendly and outgoing of all the sixteen types. They are supremely helpful to others in a myriad of real and concrete ways. Usually polite and somewhat proper, these types are also physically demonstrative, pumping your hand when shaking it, touching an arm or shoulder when making a point, or even giving bear hugs when appropiate. They wear their emotions on their sleeves and their faces usually provide an accurate reflection of their feelings. Their language reflects their strongly held beliefs and values; they may use the word 'should' a lot and freely offer opinions and reactions to everything around them. These types are often the first to volunteer when something needs to be done and tend to take on projects with gusto and purpose. This can sometimes mean they may act somewhat controlling, determined to be sure every detail is done the way they think is best. They often see things in terms of black and white and speak and act with great conviction.

ESFJ

(my guesses without reading the rest of the thread)

[redbaron]

1)

This type is first and foremost energized by new ideas and possibilities. Outgoing friendly and talkative, they love being around people and often have a large and varied assortment of friends and acquaintances. These types are usually quick and clever and commonly use language to capture people's attention and entertain them as well as to express their creative offbeat personalities. They like to tell stories jokes and use puns and plays on words. Naturally irreverent, they usually speak rapidly their language is peppered with humor and metaphors, and they may even swear more often than some other types. Insatiably curious, these types are quick to strike up conversations with strangers, ask lots of questions and tend to finish other peoples sentences. Their conversation can be very scattered as they move from one thought to the next without finishing the first as new inspriations strike them. With regard to appearance, these types often have an original artsy look and dress more for themselves than for others or to make a statement.

ENFP

[ilikesex]

Since you guys seem to think there is no difference or the types can be confused, here's a little test for you guys.

I have two descriptions, ENFP and ESFJ. Guess which one is which. Remember these are descriptions from an MBTI book, but from my point of view they can be easely typed with the use of socionics IM. Showing that MBTI and socionics don't differ that much!

Let's hear it...

citting small parts of two descriptions and saying that they comefrom two specifc types and asking people to guess them does not prove that socionics and mbti do not differ much. it only proves youre an idiot for thinking so.

[Aleksei]

citting small parts of two descriptions and saying that they comefrom two specifc types and asking people to guess them does not prove that socionics and mbti do not differ much. it only proves youre an idiot for thinking so.

This is the absolute truth. The fact that an MBTI expert (like myself) can still identify obvious differences makes him look even worse.

[Azeroffs]

citting small parts of two descriptions and saying that they comefrom two specifc types and asking people to guess them does not prove that socionics and mbti do not differ much. it only proves youre an idiot for thinking so.

This is the absolute truth. The fact that an MBTI expert (like myself) can still identify obvious differences makes him look even worse.

Personal attacks and self-proclaimed expertise works a lot better apparently.

[Jarno]

This is the absolute truth. The fact that an MBTI expert (like myself) can still identify obvious differences makes him look even worse.

First of all it proves that they are different types as opposed to the claims in another thread. Secondly it contains IM elements, which is rather impressive considering it was written by an MBTI person without knowledge of socionics. Thirdly, it shows that these MBTI type descriptions don't really deviate a lot from socionics ones.

Ps even when you're an expert in mbti, but you should also become an expert in socionics. Only then can you see that the mbti functions are flawed and the reason for all the misunderstanding. You can verify that socionics functions are the correct ones by experiencing relationships. I cannot consider you an expert when you still haven't figured that one out '-)

[Aleksei]

First of all it proves that they are different types as opposed to the claims in another thread.

I never claimed ESFj to be the same type as ENFP, I claimed it to be a type based on a different system, so they could match. It's impossible to be an ESFJ ENFP or an ESFj ENFp, but it is perfectly possible to be an ESFj ENFP.

Secondly it contains IM elements, which is rather impressive considering it was written by an MBTI person without knowledge of socionics.

I quoted from Wikisocion.

Thirdly, it shows that these MBTI type descriptions don't really deviate a lot from socionics ones.

So? Descriptions are at very best secondary, in both systems.

Ps even when you're an expert in mbti, but you should also become an expert in socionics. Only then can you see that the mbti functions are flawed and the reason for all the misunderstanding. You can verify that socionics functions are the correct ones by experiencing relationships. I cannot consider you an expert when you still haven't figured that one out '-)

I'm gonna quote myself because I can't be fucked to repeat my argument. mmkay?

Neither represent reality. Functions aren't real, they don't exist. They are symbols, for a given set of cognitive traits or conscious perspectives. Neither MBTI nor socionics are tangible, any more than the number 1 is -- their validity is in their analytical capacity.

[...]

That is precisely the beauty of Socionics. you are debasing it by stating MBTI is a similar system -- and the facti t's shallower doesn't make it any less real, or wronger. it's simply a different analytical tool, one that's easier to wield.

[Jarno]

I'm gonna quote myself because I can't be fucked to repeat my argument. mmkay?

Why should something be tangible, if it can be experienced. That's the whole idea behind a relationship.

[Jarno]

citting small parts of two descriptions and saying that they comefrom two specifc types and asking people to guess them does not prove that socionics and mbti do not differ much. it only proves youre an idiot for thinking so.

from a person who calls himself Ilikesex, I will take this opinion very seriously :-)

You are only giving a statement, without arguments, therefor quite useless. But since you want it this way. I think you are idiot times two. See? Now I win.