Guess the ENFP and ESFJ description

[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.

[Gilly]

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.

Yes, but I think any Ne-valuing extrovert could easily identify with the description (although less so LSE than the other 3), both in terms of the particulars and the general impression of the kind of person being discussed.

[Jarno]

Yes, but I think any Ne-valuing extrovert could easily identify with the description (although less so LSE than the other 3), both in terms of the particulars and the general impression of the kind of person being discussed.

Yes until he reads the other descriptions. You cannot only read one description and decide whether you are that or not. You have to compare and choose the best. That's the right method.

Everyone can relate to something out of every description.

[Chloe]

yeah, first enfp, second esfj. But most parts of 2nd could pass for ENFP as well.

until you read the alpha extrovert descriptions, then you can easely distinguish between them. .

where's the description?

[Azeroffs]

Seriously, it' pretty clear that they are ENFp and ESFj respectively. I don't even know why people are arguing this point. The similarities you see between them are the same similarities you would see in socionics descriptions considering that ENFp and ESFj do look similar in many regards.

IMO, the only descriptions which could be confused are some INTJ and INTP descriptions I've read.

[Jarno]

Seriously, it' pretty clear that they are ENFp and ESFj respectively. I don't even know why people are arguing this point. The similarities you see between them are the same similarities you would see in socionics descriptions considering that ENFp and ESFj do look similar in many regards.

IMO, the only descriptions which could be confused are some INTJ and INTP descriptions I've read.

exactly. I don't understand that arguing either. Probably because they just don't like to lose their face. Which is understandable. But you would be surprised how many people on this forum think MBTI descriptions are totally different, even describing totally different types.
I agree with the INTJ and INTP. Those are most difficult. Though some MBTI talks about strategists when describing INTP. Which makes things more distinguishable.

[Gilly]

I don't think it's safe to assume that everyone is going to be able to read a description and be able to see which one fits them best. I waffled between 3 or 4 types for years using this method, and there are plenty of people out there who are equally baffled by attempting to relate to a laundry list of generalized traits. Also I think people are very much prone to mistype themselves due to misconceptions of the functions based on having specific terms or memes attached to them.

[Gilly]

What it comes down to is this: MBTI types by dichotomies that are incongruent to the Socionics parameters of types. There is surely some level of correlation between the two, but saying that they are the same is entirely fallacious from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. I am a very clear Perceiving type in MBTI, but in Socionics I am EIE, a rational/J type.

I would like to point out, by the way, the apparent correlation between believing in the equivalence of different type systems because of their "apparent" similarities while ignoring disparities in theoretical frameworks, and Te valuing (Ashton with Jung, phaedrus and Jarno with MBTI; they all seem to simply say "Look, it's obvious!" when really it's not at all, and they are wrong ).

[Gilly]

Basically my point is, while the two descriptions are obviously "different people," and they tend to describe similar people to their respective Socionics types, the combination of theoretical differences, people's subjective attachment to different terms/memes that are associated with different functions, dichotomies, etc, and simply the sheer number of people who type differently in different systems, make for a rather obvious case for the systems not being "the same," regardless of the overall trends in consistency or basic similarities.

[Jarno]

yeah, first enfp, second esfj. But most parts of 2nd could pass for ENFP as well.




where's the description?

The source is 'the act of speedreading people' of Paul D Tieger.

[Chloe]

The source is 'the act of speedreading people' of Paul D Tieger.

hah yeah i have that book, that's why 1st sounded so familiar. but seriously, as soon as you hear possibilites in first sentence, it can only be N.
The same as "the most extraverted type", -NOT ENFp

anyway, I was asking for description of Alpha Extravert, that someone mentioned.

[Jarno]

hah yeah i have that book, that's why 1st sounded so familiar. but seriously, as soon as you hear possibilites in first sentence, it can only be N.
The same as "the most extraverted type", -NOT ENFp

anyway, I was asking for description of Alpha Extravert, that someone mentioned.

Well if you have that book, what is known as alpha extraverts in socionics jargon, they are
ENTP and ESFJ in that book.

[Chloe]

Well if you have that book, what is known as alpha extraverts in socionics jargon, they are
ENTP and ESFJ in that book.

so ENTp=ENTP and ESFj=ESFJ according to you?

I cant imagine ENTP and ESFJ (MBTI) in the same room, getting along.

[Jarno]

so ENTp=ENTP and ESFj=ESFJ according to you?

I cant imagine ENTP and ESFJ (MBTI) in the same room, getting along.

Yep. As you can read for yourself, the descriptions are describing the same kind of people. I don't know where the myth comes from that the descriptions would describe totally different people...

For your second question:
There is a difference between what you expect and how reality works :-)

They get along perfectly. They have an activation relationship. Quick to establish, and very friendly, good understanding, energizing and mutual attraction. This happens to all people who meet their 'activation' type.