Contrary type differences: IEI-INFp and IEE-ENFp

[FDG]

The INFp might take a be a bit different role depending on the context. Oh and INFps are good at making promises but not very good at keeping them "yes I will do that task and send you an email let's say tomorrow is that ok?" then after some days you start bombarding them with "why haven't you done what you promised?" then they go "oh, I'm so sorry!! I forgot. I will do it as soon as possible. How about tomorrow?" and same thing goes on...

Yeah, this is spot on, and makes me go crazy actually.

[Expat]

The INFp might take a be a bit different role depending on the context. Oh and INFps are good at making promises but not very good at keeping them "yes I will do that task and send you an email let's say tomorrow is that ok?" then after some days you start bombarding them with "why haven't you done what you promised?" then they go "oh, I'm so sorry!! I forgot. I will do it as soon as possible. How about tomorrow?" and same thing goes on...

Yeah, this is spot on, and makes me go crazy actually.

Actually this is precisely the experience I have with an INTp woman. I don't have to change one single word on XoX's description. I think it's the IP temperament "reinforced" by focus on rather than .

Should that serve as a criterion, then the woman I'm thinking of is not INFp -- she's irrational IMO but she does not seem to have that particular kind of behavior.

[Kim]

yeah. I think most of your observations are very astute XoX

ENFps on the other hand are WHACKY as hell... it makes me kinda uncomfortable because it almost seems fake (girls, especially..) The way they are ALWAYS seemingly happy.. grr. I know one that pisses the hell out of me, she can't shut up and is so annoying ... EVERYONE thinks she is so intolerable while she thinks she is incredibly funny and cute. Attention whores at a very OBVIOUS level ?

Thats actually interesting Scarlett i can imagine this. The ENFp girl at work often acts a bit too cutsey. For instance she will say "hi, my name is XXXX, whats your name?" in a very kiddy voice etc. She does this kind of thing all the time. I actually think most people do like her though(including me), but im certian this kind of thing would annoy some people a lot.

Most ENFps on here have confirmed at some point that they were shy when they were young and more confident and outgoing now that they are older. I still think that many of you mistype (young) ESFps ethical subtype as ENFps (and the ENFps would be mistyped as INFp or INFj). ESFps ethical subtype can appear very ENFp because they are also warm and caring, but then have the confidence to be whacky and funny ( ). I would not have acted like that around people I didn't feel very comfortable with (unless drunk perhaps).

I am very close friends with two ESFps ethical subtype and one ESFp sensory subtype and if you saw all three of them together, you would most certainly assume that the former two are ENFps compared to the S subtype. But they are without doubt ESFp (especially when you look at what is different in comparison with me. You can see it in DeltaRho and me even in our postings). In addition, all descriptions I have read on here about the ESFps you all know describe the S-subtype (not to talk about the blatant stereotypes).

[FDG]

The ESFps I know are also pretty "airy" in the sense of being absent-minded about various stuff.

[mikemex]

Me: 23 years old.

My friends: 22, 32, 35, 44, 57, 60, 61.

Altough I know lots of people of my age, I tend to ignore them because I often have the feeling about them as time wasters. I mean, they don't have any real interest and spend most of their time just killing it.

When I was younger I pretended to be interested. Now I simply don't care and seek the company of older people which seems far more interesting to me. I feel akward sometimes, but it is sure worth it.

[detail]

ENFp

[meatburger]

Fanks Detail

That song reminds me of a year 7 camp when we were all on a cruise boat.

[stefana]

:slaps forehead:

God, please ignore what Josh brought up.

[Going B. Zerk]

What are the most obvious ways to tell ENFp from INFp?

[Republicus]

This confuses me, since extraversion and introversion are easiest aspects of the psyche to identify. What is it about E/I you have trouble determining? What is the context of the individuals you are interacting with who you are trying to type?

Also, do you mean a Socionics INFp or a MBTI INFP (INFj)?

[Khamelion]

extraversion and introversion are easiest aspects of the psyche to identify

this couldn't be more untrue

[Going B. Zerk]

Also, do you mean a Socionics INFp or a MBTI INFP (INFj)?

This is a socionics site after all...

This confuses me, since extraversion and introversion are easiest aspects of the psyche to identify. What is it about E/I you have trouble determining? What is the context of the individuals you are interacting with who you are trying to type?

::Sigh::

I’m no champ on typing people.
Some ENFps can seem rather “introverted”. And I think I might somehow confuse ENFps with INFps, since I don’t have many (if any) reliable rl examples of both types I can compare.

[Expat]

extraversion and introversion are easiest aspects of the psyche to identify

this couldn't be more untrue

Clover's right.

"Extraversion" and "introversion" are the easiest aspects of someone's behavior to identify only if you follow pop-MBTI criteria; if that's what you are doing, I assure you you are mistying a lot of people in Socionics.

As to the question: I don't know any single way to easily differentiate between them - not when you meet them. INFps are well within the Compliant range and ENFps, within the Obstinate range; INFps are Resolute and Victim, ENFps are Reasonable and Infantile, and, obviously, INFps are IP temperament and ENFps, EP. The best way is to understand all of these traits.

[Angel von Himmel]

This may seem sort of like a dunce answer, but ENFps and INFps are only as easy to tell apart as ENFjs and INFjs are as easy to tell apart. And that is not easy at all.

I think that to tell them apart you need to take a more proactive mindset that does not involve the stereotypical MBTI style, where people are typed as introverts and extroverts, but involves the more applicable socionics approach that functions are introverted and extroverted and then note that an INFp uses and and an ENFp uses and ... once you realize this, differentiating the two should get a whole lot easier, because instead of saying, "geeze ... is this person an introvert or an extrovert?" you would be saying "does this person express together with or together with " and that is how you tell the difference! Forget the MBTI way, it is disfunctional.

[Khamelion]

extraversion and introversion are easiest aspects of the psyche to identify

this couldn't be more untrue

Clover's right.

"Extraversion" and "introversion" are the easiest aspects of someone's behavior to identify only if you follow pop-MBTI criteria; if that's what you are doing, I assure you you are mistying a lot of people in Socionics.

As to the question: I don't know any single way to easily differentiate between them - not when you meet them. INFps are well within the Compliant range and ENFps, within the Obstinate range; INFps are Resolute and Victim, ENFps are Reasonable and Infantile, and, obviously, INFps are IP temperament and ENFps, EP. The best way is to understand all of these traits.

*sighs with relief*

[misutii]

ENFps tend to have a "wider" social network so to speak... whereas INFps are more so limit themselves to a few people they become very close with

[Khamelion]

ENFps tend to have a "wider" social network so to speak... whereas INFps are more so limit themselves to a few people they become very close with

agreed

[Angel von Himmel]

ENFps tend to have a "wider" social network so to speak... whereas INFps are more so limit themselves to a few people they become very close with

The problem with this is that it says nothing about what functions a person could be using. Even if this is a valid way, the second dilemma is to diffrentiate INFps from INFjs. If you do not decide this by closely checking the introverted and extroverted aspects of the functions they are using, you are still going to be confused all hell.

[Republicus]

Your avatar is very appropriate Clover. And Expat, MBTI is the ONLY way it could be the easiest? Not using the thinking function today?

Extraversion and Introversion aren’t strictly related to cognition, nor to the persona. Psychologically Jung says the psyche holds a disposition towards one or other, this affects, among other things, how the ego interacts with its environment. Neurologically extraversion is the predisposition of the brain to react to dopamine in certain areas. Meaning introverts don’t get the same ‘high’ from dopamine that an extravert does. Obviously this only applies when dopamine is being employed to as a reward mechanism, and not its other functions like muscle control. I am unclear if this affects motivation, that is very possible.

The neurological explanation doesn’t preclude Jung’s explanations of these aspects of the mind in their psychological expression. Since dopamine in this sense is only being given, not being given, dependent on external circumstances it stands to reason that the mind, which is tied to the physical brain, will have to reflect this relationship psychologically. The expression, or at least part of it, is extraversion and introversion.

If I understood neurology better I would probably be able to explain better how extraversion and introversion would be experienced psychologically, and just what implications this has. Since I don’t I will have to provide a more Jungian philosophical definition of extraversion’s and introversion’s effect on the psyche. The relationship between dopamine and extraversion is by no mean absolute. In Jungian terms his definitions may have been broader and encompassed more than what was being tested. Having read both, I don’t think this is the case, but I am simply acknowledging the possibility that the terms here may not be equal.

Extraversion and Introversion in Jung’s, and therefore Socionics’, view, at the very least, is that the psyche, in this context the conscious mind, has a predisposition towards one or other. It has a favorite, it likes itself or it likes the outside world. The conscious is guided by the ego, the entity responsible for interacting with the environment. The ego is going to be pulling information from two sources, the brain, and the body (senses). It will prefer one or the other, this is extraversion and introversion. The conscious will be predisposed to the self or the external world’s input.

In essence extraversion or introversion are properties the mind and how it navigates the adapts to the external world, or visa versa. Which thing has to change, the images of self, or the images of the world. And in practice as well. Unlike a persona, which may appear to be either introverted or extraverted, the individuals psyche is not; unless they have Disassociate Personality Disorder (Multiple Personality Disorder) then I don’t know, but I still think they are one or the other, since DPD is ego like structures, not distinct egos.

So how do you tell when a person is E or I? Well, that isn’t always easy, but as I said, it is the easiest. Particularly with any observation across a spectrum of environment, particularly outside or work/school or any formalized social unit. When they are alone, or with their friends, then it is easiest to tell. Extraversion being linked to their sociability is our cultural definition, and it sucks, you can thank Eysenck for that definition, the creator of the infamous IQ test. It is wrong. Social extraversion, in his definition, is not a universal human cultural trait.

In Japan they are ‘introverted’ culture. They don’t have displays of outgoing gregarious behavior, that would be very shameful. Does that mean they don’t have extraverts? Of course not. So being gregarious or socially outgoing has nothing to with extraversion in people, although in a specific culture that may be a way it is exhibited. Unfortunately it isn’t ever a one to one correlation like that, and introverts can act that way too, specifically if they fulfilling the role of a persona.

Extraversion and introversion can be determined by how the person is navigating the world. You won’t probably be able to tell that if they don’t talk, and that is really the key, why they say, and why they are saying it. There are other methods I’m sure, but I find this to be very reliable. There are pitfalls in this method, one is mistaking feeling or something like that for extraversion. Someone expressing the sentiment of social responsibility might make you think extraversion, and while the thought itself may be an example of that, it is important to recognize that a sentiment that has an extraverted nature doesn’t mean the person is extraverted.

That doesn’t make it easy, and it is made worse that there are so many different reasons for behavior. To be reliable you have to establish a pattern of consistent action, and even then you may be falling victim to confirmation bias. This is one of the reason I don’t try to type people at all, and simply let any realizations about the person come as they may. I don’t actively look for them.

Still, I will attempt to define a few of the traits I think people will have regardless of culture of other factors, mental retardation for example (In which a extravert may be extremely socially withdrawn because of constant rejection). I am trying to get a better idea of Autism to see how they might exhibit extraversion.

Anyways, as I said, some traits in the manner of thinking and interaction of the world that an extravert and introvert might display. Just a few things off the top of my head, by no means a complete list of all the behaviors, or even all the cues I use, I will add others as I think of them and clarify any ambiguity in these. Only if you care and find these useful.

Definition of these traits in relation adaptation:
Jung prefaces this extravert section by describing some general behavior of extraverts. Unlike the farce MBTI, and to a lesser extent Socionics, he doesn’t neglect the key factor in these behaviors, the motivation. The motivation reflects the ego, and therefore will reflect extraversion or introversion. You need to find a way to see that expressed by people, their actions and their words can carry with them their motivation. They may simply state it forth rite, or you may ask them (In such a way that doesn’t plant a suggestion in them).

One of Jung’s examples is how a man will like an opera singer, not because he likes the music, but because other people like him. The later part is obviously the important part. His preference has been shaped by the external world. A single instance doesn’t constitute the whole psyche as being extraverted or introverted, but a repeated pattern does. Definitions of extraversion and introversion that state only the behavior are almost always worthless. Stating that someone is social does not constitute extraversion. They may be an introvert who uses social situation to pursue introverted thought processes.

Here is another example, a coworker and myself objected to our bosses consistent use of the word agnostic in reference to things like “I’m agnostic as to whether or nor this is the path I want to take.” Same behavior, but totally different reasons. She objected because that was not the dictionary definition she had learned. He was violating the external world’s word usage. I objected on different ground. Of course I thought he was using the word incorrectly, but not because a dictionary said so. Mostly because I wouldn’t use it, and I had never heard it used in the context he was using it. An extravert in my same position probably would have adjusted their definition to include the usage. And coincidently, that usage of the word agnostic is apparently correct.

So the question is, is someone doing this because they think that is best/correct/right, or because they think that is what the external construct they have would do/wants done. Are the terms they using their own, or externally defined. Which one holds more importance? Motivation is the key.

This isn’t the greatest definition. I am able to use this method better than I am able to describe it. Still, I think by observing this factor you will find that extraversion and introversion can be easily discerned in most cases. And the cases where it is not you will be able to figure it out, if you have enough contact with the person. If you have limited contact, or in a limited capacity, it may be impossible. But, it is still easier to see if someone is introverted or extroverted than any aspect of their cognition.

Here are a few additional behaviors I believe universally indicate extraverts of introverts.

Introverts
Defensive: Not against criticism, anyone can do that. By defensive I mean they put their persona out to act as a shield against intrusion into their world. You notice how some people you don’t know just start telling you a bunch of stuff about their day and family, like you could care. But introverts are more guarded with thing like family, which are part of their inner world.

I observed someone once who wouldn’t even answer question on what he did in his free time when I asked. I share his sentiment to a degree, what do when I’m alone, if it involves any sort of physical interaction with the external world, I still consider an exercise of my self. I feel violated when this is shared without my permission so to speak. For instance, if someone over hears my music. I try very hard to prevent that from happening. Because when I listen to music I am exercises my imagination. I do not believe this to be cultural in any manner. I have found Arab and Chinese people who appear to behave the same way. This is also expressed by with holding certain types of information, emotions, to unknown people.

Extraverts
Absorptive: Extraverts will absorb their environment, adapt to it, and fairly quickly. I work with a guy who like me was prior military. I am an introvert, he is an extravert. When we got to this job our vocabulary was similarly. In the year since we’ve been here he has adopted many of the business terms used around here. I on the other hand do not use a single one. I am acutely aware of these terms, so I may be consciously resisting them. Never the less, I have observed repeatedly that extraverts adapt/absorb to their surrounds faster and better. This is also consistent with the theory behind extraversion.

Things I don’t think are directly related to either:
Thinking something ought to be a certain way, and trying to project that on others.
Sociability.


This probably has some areas that need clarification, if you care please ask any questions or point or any problems.

[Angel von Himmel]

A little comment on the above explanation by Republicus ... Carl Jung was a philosopher, not a scientist ... it is correct to say that he never purposed for himself any scientific reasoning and nearly his whole emphasis bordered on religion, philosophy and psychology. Other people have tried to explain introversion and extroversion by various factors such as dopamine level or regions of the brain such as extroversion and introversion being derived from developements in specific part of the brains.
I would actually say in a way that attempting to understand or interpret anything Carl Jung said on a scientific basis may actually be perverting and distorting his theories, for the simple fact that the theories I do not think are even compatible with science.

The only other thing I am going to say is that it is far too easy to confuse non-type related things people do with either extroversion or introversion for it to be reliable to type someone just based on extroversion and introversion alone. You need to type people in function pairs and by figuring out how people are using the functions not by picking apart a 4 letter code, which is what MBTI does and it is not very accurate. Atleast not if you are trying to type on the basis of a socionics context.

[Republicus]

I would actually say in a way that attempting to understand or interpret anything Carl Jung said on a scientific basis may actually be perverting and distorting his theories, for the simple fact that the theories I do not think are even compatible with science.

Curios, what then would be the value for you of studying Jung, Socionics, Personality and so forth if it is just philosophy, and could not be correlated to anything scientific? I do disagree with your assertion as well, but I won't go into that now. Also, if he wasn't a scientist, then he doesn't have any theories


And in line with your second comment, i'm not suggesting people type based on E/I. simply what it is and and how tell independent of it's usage with cognition.

[Angel von Himmel]

Curios, what then would be the value for you of studying Jung, Socionics, Personality and so forth if it is just philosophy, and could not be correlated to anything scientific? I do disagree with your assertion as well, but I won't go into that now. Also, if he wasn't a scientist, then he doesn't have any theories

Well, let me put it this way, although I mind you this is going to be a very strange answer that borders on religion and philosophy .... I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say here.

Essentially I do think that Jungian theory works and is valuable for the simple reason that it is based on Universal principles. It is hard to dispute the fact that people think or that people feel, because everyone does. The same thing with intuition and sensing although those two could be a little disputable on account of not being a part of the body, but they do obviously exist. However, I do not think any of these ideas work because there is a scientific basis behind it, but because it deals with the intuitive connections that every man has in common. Is it not true that every culture in world is either dictated by people who believe in the spiritual or by people who believe in the powers of science? Is it not true that there are cultures who lift one of these up and then minorly hold or neglect the other?

For example, the institution of marriage comes from the bible and is an integral part of western culture. The institution of marriage as western people understand does not and never has existed in all parts of the world. Western Culture believes that men and women are seperate genders based on their anatomy. For years, western cultures upheld God as a creative force and their was a uniting of church and state.

Then came the reformation ...

Then came the settling of America

Americans decided to favor deist principles in place of christian principles and keeped church and state seperate.

The social questions of the 19th century came along with new modern technology, changing the fact of europe and causing mass overpopulation.

Darwinism and survival of the fittest came along as a result of the overpopulation

People begin looking less at God and more in the direction of science, eugeneics theories arise and evolution theories become common place. No longer is a God responsible for anything. It becomes common place for people to question the existance of God and it becomes taboo to speak of religion in the context of government or anything related to school functions. People look for empiracle reasoning abilities.

Now the American culture has a thing called "feminism," which with the help of the eugenics movement has totally undermined the Christian insitution of marriage by telling women that they are defined by their pussies or more specifically they are their pussies, that they should be sexually expressive whenever they want, that that technological advancements such as condoms, birth control pills, abortions, etc. make marriage nullified and unneeded [and in actuality they do make marriage commitments unnecessary in a global scale by eliminating the incentive to be responsible]. However, there are a few errors and bigoted things about feminism that are actually sort of ugly and even hypocritical [that is besides the fact that they now refer to themselves as cunts and shout that at their meetings] and that is that in order for them to undermine marriage as a form of mysogyny [which it really is not if you understand that the biblical principle was there for birth control, health reasons, and for political and social reasons as well, not to mention security] feminists had to actually adopt the Christian doctrine that a man and woman's gender is defined by their anatomy which in all respects they claim is mysogenic. And instead of lobbying for sanctions against the violence against men, the reformation of the scam system the goverment has set up that they call "child care payments," and educating women against bad practices such as getting knocked up so they can keep a guy [the baby being a tool to keep the guy and if that fails they can get the state to make the man pay her money] they bitch, whine, and moan about the way that women are treated over in some distant country such as Iran when there is nothing short of an army that is going to change any of the viewpoints society has placed against women there and totally ignore the majority of the main issues back at home [each woman claiming to be feminist in western society seems to have her own subjective non-globalistic reason for being feminist it seems]. Not to mention that it is totally untrue that most women are being paid less than men and are having higher difficulty finding work as evidenced by the high percentage of educated women working as nurses, teachers, etc. while the men are working at Starbucks or being stay at home dads. Second, the principle of defining a persons gender by their private parts is not even a universal idea, but a western one. In asia their are men who are clasified as female by behavior regardless of anatomy. Hence, this is a perfect example of a culture root that started out with religion in the lead and sciences second, whereas science is now in the lead and religion second. People no longer understand Intuition in its true context and try to interpret life by means of science.

Another thing, besides my rant here which might have gone a little off topic ... is that cultures who value religion over science tend to refer to forces that they do not know in terms of "Gods" or "spirits," whereas they sometimes would make a representation of what they think God is as an explanation of these forces. This does not mean that either science or religion is better than the other; however, you have to realize here the differences are only subjective. People who use arguments to mock the existance of God with empirical style arguments such as "how can a loving God allow children in Africa to starve?" do not understand what it means to be intuitive nor the purpose of religion... and the answer is simple, because it takes just as much subjectivity and faith to believe in things called love or acceptance as it does to believe in a thing called God, because what people strive for is exactly where intuition comes into play and for what gives people purpose in life. Jungian psychology is no different in the aspect that it strives to give people a purpose and a goal, and that is the actualisation of a persons psyche. That is its one and sole purpose and it can not be described in any other way.

Hopefully my roundabout way of explaining this will not be very confusing for you.

[Exodus]

Curios, what then would be the value for you of studying Jung, Socionics, Personality and so forth if it is just philosophy, and could not be correlated to anything scientific? I do disagree with your assertion as well, but I won't go into that now. Also, if he wasn't a scientist, then he doesn't have any theories

Well, let me put it this way, although I mind you this is going to be a very strange answer that borders on religion and philosophy .... I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to say here.

Essentially I do think that Jungian theory works and is valuable for the simple reason that it is based on Universal principles. It is hard to dispute the fact that people think or that people feel, because everyone does. The same thing with intuition and sensing although those two could be a little disputable on account of not being a part of the body, but they do obviously exist. However, I do not think any of these ideas work because there is a scientific basis behind it, but because it deals with the intuitive connections that every man has in common. Is it not true that every culture in world is either dictated by people who believe in the spiritual or by people who believe in the powers of science? Is it not true that there are cultures who lift one of these up and then minorly hold or neglect the other?

This is a very interesting idea, but isn't this equally true for Myers-Briggs and Socionics? And are the two theories equally useful?

My point is, even if Jungian theory did not, Socionics does make empirical predictions: if X is of type A and Y is of type B, X and Y will have relationship Z. This predictive power is not explained merely by the universality of Socionic traits.

[Angel von Himmel]

My point is, even if Jungian theory did not, Socionics does make empirical predictions: if X is of type A and Y is of type B, X and Y will have relationship Z. This predictive power is not explained merely by the universality of Socionic traits.

It is also called a generalization. A relationship to define perceptions.

[Grek0]

What are the most obvious ways to tell ENFp from INFp?

The one who just won't shut up is the ENFp. The quiet one is the INFp.

Both are nice though ;-)

[Mea]

What are the most obvious ways to tell ENFp from INFp?

The one who just won't shut up is the ENFp. The quiet one is the INFp.

Both are nice though ;-)

Eh. Not true, ENFps can be very quiet too.
That's the reason why I don't really know how to respond to this thread.

[Expat]

I thought of a rule of thumb that may be helpful; it sounds like stereotypes, and it partly is, but I have seen some trends.

- ENFp: more likely to enjoy learning foreign languages, literature, and the like. Less likely to enjoy mathematics and engineering. More likely to read a lot.

- INFp: the opposite: more likely to feel drawn to at least some mathematical thought, and not that keen on studying languages. The "mathematical" bit may actually be expressed as a taste for playing an instrument. Less likely to read a lot.

Now there is no need to point out exceptions that you know of - - I know a couple myself. I just thought that, as a rule of thumb, this is more often than not accurate.

[Mea]

I thought of a rule of thumb that may be helpful; it sounds like stereotypes, and it partly is, but I have seen some trends.

- ENFp: more likely to enjoy learning foreign languages, literature, and the like. Less likely to enjoy mathematics and engineering. More likely to read a lot.

- INFp: the opposite: more likely to feel drawn to at least some mathematical thought, and not that keen on studying languages. The "mathematical" bit may actually be expressed as a taste for playing an instrument. Less likely to read a lot.

Now there is no need to point out exceptions that you know of - - I know a couple myself. I just thought that, as a rule of thumb, this is more often than not accurate.

oo o.. this is pretty accurate. At least the ENFp one is.

[XoX]

I thought of a rule of thumb that may be helpful; it sounds like stereotypes, and it partly is, but I have seen some trends.

- ENFp: more likely to enjoy learning foreign languages, literature, and the like. Less likely to enjoy mathematics and engineering. More likely to read a lot.

- INFp: the opposite: more likely to feel drawn to at least some mathematical thought, and not that keen on studying languages. The "mathematical" bit may actually be expressed as a taste for playing an instrument. Less likely to read a lot.

Now there is no need to point out exceptions that you know of - - I know a couple myself. I just thought that, as a rule of thumb, this is more often than not accurate.

oo o.. this is pretty accurate. At least the ENFp one is.

I think I relate more to the INFp one here. I don't really think I'm INFp though. Foreign languages and literature have always been a nightmare to me. Even if I don't particularly enjoy mathematics and engineering it was always clear to me that I would end up having a career where they would be needed at least to some extent. Then I have to admit that the older I get the less I'm interested in engineering and maths but my focus is not shifting towards foreign languages, cultures or literature but more towards business and people skills.

[Joy]

I thought of a rule of thumb that may be helpful; it sounds like stereotypes, and it partly is, but I have seen some trends.

- ENFp: more likely to enjoy learning foreign languages, literature, and the like. Less likely to enjoy mathematics and engineering. More likely to read a lot.

- INFp: the opposite: more likely to feel drawn to at least some mathematical thought, and not that keen on studying languages. The "mathematical" bit may actually be expressed as a taste for playing an instrument. Less likely to read a lot.

Now there is no need to point out exceptions that you know of - - I know a couple myself. I just thought that, as a rule of thumb, this is more often than not accurate.

I've been considering INFp for someone I've previously thought of as a Fi dominant type, and what you've said about mathematics/engineering is definitely true of him (and the only "foreign language" he's ever been interested in is morse code ). Peter thought he could be ENFp, but I'm very confident that his wife is ISTj, which makes it seem pretty unlikely that he's ENFp. He has a very good relationship with his wife, btw.

Here's his type thread. If someone wants to comment in a way is relevant to this thread, post here. However, if someone wants to help me type him, feel free to bump his type thread instead.

[Expat]

I've been considering INFp for someone I've previously thought of as a Fi dominant type, and what you've said about mathematics/engineering is definitely true of him (and the only "foreign language" he's ever been interested in is morse code ). Peter thought he could be ENFp, but I'm very confident that his wife is ISTj, which makes it seem pretty unlikely that he's ENFp. He has a very good relationship with his wife, btw.

Here's his type thread. If someone wants to comment in a way is relevant to this thread, post here. However, if someone wants to help me type him, feel free to bump his type thread instead.

Well, learning a foreign language sometimes isn't an obvious thing to do in your geographical region, especially for a tool maker.

From your description in that thread, I can't see ENFp. What I see is:

- negativist
- introvert
- aristocratic
- ethical and probably Ti>Te(not presenting evidence or elaboration on how is past experiences are relevant)

From these we have -- IxFx as you said ---> ISFp or ISFj if negativist but then Aristocratic doesn't fit
If we "stretch" negativism to include Ni IP, then INFp-Ni

If we eliminate Aristocracy, then ISFp or ISFj

However, I do get signs of Ti>Te

ISFp or INFp-Ni -- ISFp makes sense for his profession.

However, from your description, I do think INFp-Ni is more likely.

[Joy]

Yes, I think so, too. I've been thinking about the negativist thing... and decided perhaps I was mistaking bitterness for negativism. He's not like this much anymore, but for a long time he always spoke as though hopeless and helpless... that's depression, which is not type related.

[Joy]

And while I do not associate myself with any particular type these days, I feel comfortable at least saying "Gamma". The relationship between him and me is the closest parent/child relationship in the family, and always has been. This being the case, ISFp seems less likely than INFp.

I hung out with my sister recently, and she asked me if I ever noticed how talking to him has a very calming affect. She said that if she's stressed out and she calls him, talking to him (even if about a totally unrelated subject) calms her down a lot. I hadn't thought about it, but this is true of my conversations with him as well.

[Jarno]

it's sometimes indeed difficult to see quickly what is an INFP and what is an ENFP.
These are the most common differences, that i can think of now.

ENFP:
very charming, they get/want easely to be noticed in a group, make jokes

INFP:
lesser charming, not easely noticed, more serious

[Muffinstein]

All right, not knowing much about the bolts/nuts of socionics (or at least, having forgotten most of the interesting parts of it), I need your help, guys. I mean, obviously this is mostly gonna be conjecture, but I'll take any opinion on my I/E dilemna. I've given up trying to figure it out, and I think that mostly comes from a maybe faulty conception of what it really means? Intro vs. Extro, I mean. And I think it comes down to more than just how much I talk in a social situation....
I'm not sure how to elaborate on this, or explain how my brain works (cause I am most definitely NFP!)

I'm known for being extremely quiet. But every other sign points to extraversion, at least in the way I carry myself and respond to situations... (ie; I've only recently begun to actually enjoy spending time alone with myself). I've heard that enfp is the most 'intro' of the types, and that doesn't help...
I mean, I have a lot of friends, and I make them super fast, but everyone still says I'm real Insular and Mysterious. gah! I SO don't know, and it probably doesn't matter. I even looked into figuring this out through the quadrants, and while I feel a certain looseness among the Betas, I definitely resound with the core seriousness of Delta. I also read one of the articles that related the quadrants to phases of conception and whatnot, and ... I've always kinda provided hope to people (as opposed to that 'eternal victim' thing associated with beta)... does that make sense? blaaaaah.

[Expat]

I would recommend that you start from zero on your Socionics type, scrapping even the preconceived notion that you are "NFP", since you clearly do not know much about Socionics types.

If you have to be either INFp or ENFp I'd go for INFp; but you should really start from zero and tell more about yourself, if you are serious about finding your Socionics type.

[snegledmaca]

Initial impression... SEI? Somehow I can see you complementing an ILE but not a SLE nor a SLI. But that's just my initial impression.

[Muffinstein]

expat, ok, more about myself...

- I'm an art student who gets pretty horrible grades cause I'd much rather accomplish things according to whim and fancy, and also I'm kind of lazy
- People regularly accuse me of being not of this earth, or totally out of touch with reality
- some amount of social anxiety, but the shyness involved with that has more to do with people getting kind of confused by me when I just let myself act freely
- um... I have a kitty?
- I'm not sure what kind of information you would need, and though it might seem otherwise, I HATE talking about myself. probably adds to that mysterious thing, which is a quality that just gets me into trouble, but anyway....
- I have few people who I trust completely, and can feel completely open around, but I would call each of them a best friend. And I make friends like that pretty easily. Actually, most people are my 'friend', even if we don't really know how to talk to each other comfortably yet (and we always eventually figure out some sort of beneficial, satisfying common ground to interact on)
- I'm a walking existential crisis


snegledmaca of the coool name,

My roommate's an ILE and while we've become pretty vital to eachother, and we have an awesome dynamic, it doesn't last super long and we have to take breaks before we can "play" off eachother again. And SLE's are just super! I know one that I'm not really close to yet, but I do love his company and don't really see his type's "negative" traits (or at least, he's been nothing but gracious and VERY perceptive with me). I don't think I've met an SLI, but I think I'd like them. Actually, an old friend of mine may be one, and we've always had this unspoken bond. .... except, I've got an unspoken bond with freaking everybody, so anyway....

[Animal]

Actually... you remind of a combo of two people: Maisy and BionicGoat.

This is my post #666 under this account!

[astralsilky]

- I'm a walking existential crisis

LOL

No worries, Muffinstein! I haven't even read all this thread but the taste of your posts is loud and clear - you're 100% INFp. The REAL deal, too! Not like all of those mistyped INFPs out there, as there are many.