ENFp-IEE Subtypes

[tereg]

*glomps Tereg*

Walked right into that one. -_0

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Walked right into that one. -_0

Of course. But it was fun. ^.^

[schrödinger's cat]

*glomps schrödinger's cat* Kindred!

I feel exactly the same when other ENFps write about themselves, especially when they talk about stuff like absent-mindedness or how random and scattered they can be.

And you found an umlaut!! I'm impressed. When I picked my user name I didn't even realize that no one would be able to type the bloody thing. That was embarassing.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I feel exactly the same when other ENFps write about themselves, especially when they talk about stuff like absent-mindedness or how random and scattered they can be.

And you found an umlaut!! I'm impressed. When I picked my user name I didn't even realize that no one would be able to type the bloody thing. That was embarassing.

Actually, I just copied and pasted. I have no idea how to type those. ^.^;

[tereg]

I'm going to let you in on a little trick.

Hold down the Alt key to the left of the spacebar, and while you're holding it down type the numbers 0246 in that order

So, Alt+0246: ö

Also, Alt+0214: Ö

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I'm going to let you in on a little trick.

Hold down the Alt key to the left of the spacebar, and while you're holding it down type the numbers 0246 in that order

So, Alt+0246: ö

Also, Alt+0214: Ö

Oh, thank you. *cough*TeHA*cough* I'll probably forget, but I really appreciate the gesture. *types one and cracks up* What does that look like to you?

[meatburger]

I had a very good idea of what industry would be like, and I just didn't feel like it was a good fit for me.

Exactly the same thing happened to me. Straight out of school i wanted to do social work / psychology and but with some coercion by my parents i chose Network Engineering. I got my diploma of network engineering but didn't go into IT afterwards. I could just imagine what many of the people would be like, the every day problems, my problems and i just knew it wasn't for me. Must be Ne i think?

Hehe we used to make Ascii directories in school to hide stuff and play jokes on teachers. Alt + 255 makes an invisible character so that was hillarious.

Åk╝┤ÀÊ☼♫µÁ¹Ö»○¶│ƒ

What fun

[tereg]

Exactly the same thing happened to me. Straight out of school i wanted to do social work / psychology and but with some coercion by my parents i chose Network Engineering. I got my diploma of network engineering but didn't go into IT afterwards. I could just imagine what many of the people would be like, the every day problems, my problems and i just knew it wasn't for me. Must be Ne i think?

Really what it was that I saw was more about my ability to provide a level of precision and energy that I see as necessary in a profession like engineering. I mean, I would hate to be responsible for something catastrophic due to an engineering error that could have been prevented. (e.g. the Challenger disaster) The smallest engineering errors sometimes have very large and widespread effects. I just didn't feel like I had the right mindset to be able to maintain a level of energy and precision to be able to do well over a long period of time at an engineeering job. I really saw myself in a hypothetical situation doing well for the first 6-12 months at the level I think is required, and then my work level dropping off. And that's when the mistakes happen. So, I just flat out decided that it wasn't for me. I just had that feeling that my natural tendencies would repeat and there was too large of a chance of making critical mistakes.

The everyday problems don't bother me at all, really.

[tiny_dancer]

You made the right choice.

That's how I feel about architecture. There's always a lawsuit lying in wait for you the minute you make a mistake. The question is not whether you'll be involved in a lawsuit - it's *how many*. I can document every single thing I say *or* not document certain questionable decisions, hope that the other person doesn't have their tape recorder on, and wait for the other guy to possibly get screwed. The rules of Covering Your Ass - whoever holds the pen rules the world. I hate it.. Although my role function kind of enjoys this *gasp*

But I feel the same way - I want a job where my natural tendencies won't hurt me as much.

[Lobo]

Really what it was that I saw was more about my ability to provide a level of precision and energy that I see as necessary in a profession like engineering. I mean, I would hate to be responsible for something catastrophic due to an engineering error that could have been prevented. (e.g. the Challenger disaster) The smallest engineering errors sometimes have very large and widespread effects. I just didn't feel like I had the right mindset to be able to maintain a level of energy and precision to be able to do well over a long period of time at an engineeering job. I really saw myself in a hypothetical situation doing well for the first 6-12 months at the level I think is required, and then my work level dropping off. And that's when the mistakes happen. So, I just flat out decided that it wasn't for me. I just had that feeling that my natural tendencies would repeat and there was too large of a chance of making critical mistakes.

The everyday problems don't bother me at all, really.

You might be overlooking that as an engineer you don't necessarily need to be involved in projects that require painstaking number analysis, or that involve potential loss of life for that matter. An example I can give you is the field of Engineering Ethics, which in the US has been developed by ABET I believe. You could also be involved in the design aspect of things that are not potentially dangerous to society, from things like electric screwdrivers, cameras, air-conditioning systems, etc.

Actually, I think I know an ENFp who is in engineering... At least I get that certain vibe that makes me think so. I definately believe that different personalities of people can contribute to a particular field, in this case engineering, regardless of whether they might not fit into the sterotypical mold. In fact, I pretty much hate stereotypes... Tereg you gots to believe!!!

[tereg]

You might be overlooking that as an engineer you don't necessarily need to be involved in projects that require painstaking number analysis, or that involve potential loss of life for that matter. An example I can give you is the field of Engineering Ethics, which in the US has been developed by ABET I believe. You could also be involved in the design aspect of things that are not potentially dangerous to society, from things like electric screwdrivers, cameras, air-conditioning systems, etc.

Actually, I think I know an ENFp who is in engineering... At least I get that certain vibe that makes me think so. I definately believe that different personalities of people can contribute to a particular field, in this case engineering, regardless of whether they might not fit into the sterotypical mold. In fact, I pretty much hate stereotypes... Tereg you gots to believe!!!

It's interesting that you mention Engineering Ethics. This was presented to me while I was in my last year (by my dad talking about the importance of the field). I dunno, just something about it didn't resonate with me. I mean, I think it's an important field, no question. But I just don't feel moved by it. It's funny because I remember shortly after dad had talked about it with me, I started to talk to other people about that possibly being a possibility and how important the field is. (I did that a lot-- talk about something to people that a person has just spoken to me about as far as suggestions for what the original person thinks I should look into.)

I also believe that different personalities can contribute to a given field. I essentially felt that way about myself as it relates to the aura of engineers as a whole... pretty much the entire time I was going through college, but yeah, I totally agree with that concept.

I was able to contribute something back during my time there. I proctored a freshman level logic design EE class for 6 semesters while I still getting my degree. It was a self-paced class, so the proctors and TA's ran the class. It was a different sort of class, and I just really enjoyed that class a lot. There were 20 units in the course, and each unit had a test. The student takes a unit test when they feel ready to take it. Typically a test will have 4-5 logic design questions based on the unit. If the student gets all of the questions correctly, they move on to the next unit. If they fail, they have to retake the test and are assigned "homework" problems for the questions they did not get correct. TAs and graders were there to answer questions (from students not taking tests), grade tests, help with labs and homework, and just keep the flow of the class going.

There's a little more to it than that, but essentially that was the feel of the course. But I remember feeling the weight of the grind as I entered my 6th semester grading. I still enjoyed it, and I still did the job well, but it just really started to weigh on me. I don't know how to explain it at the moment, but it just did.


Honestly, I just have this core feeling that my talents are better utilized doing something else. That's not a knock against engineering or a negative remark of the time and money spent getting the degree. There's a lot of valuable things I took away from my experience in college, and that I still can draw upon in some technical situations I find myself in. I don't regret going through it. I just think that there's something else that's better for me.

[mikemex]

Actually, I think I know an ENFp who is in engineering...

Me?

[Slacker]

I worked for an engineering firm and there were a couple of ENFps and INFjs there. Not the majority by any means.

[Lobo]

It's interesting that you mention Engineering Ethics. This was presented to me while I was in my last year (by my dad talking about the importance of the field). I dunno, just something about it didn't resonate with me. I mean, I think it's an important field, no question. But I just don't feel moved by it. It's funny because I remember shortly after dad had talked about it with me, I started to talk to other people about that possibly being a possibility and how important the field is. (I did that a lot-- talk about something to people that a person has just spoken to me about as far as suggestions for what the original person thinks I should look into.)

I also believe that different personalities can contribute to a given field. I essentially felt that way about myself as it relates to the aura of engineers as a whole... pretty much the entire time I was going through college, but yeah, I totally agree with that concept.

I was able to contribute something back during my time there. I proctored a freshman level logic design EE class for 6 semesters while I still getting my degree. It was a self-paced class, so the proctors and TA's ran the class. It was a different sort of class, and I just really enjoyed that class a lot. There were 20 units in the course, and each unit had a test. The student takes a unit test when they feel ready to take it. Typically a test will have 4-5 logic design questions based on the unit. If the student gets all of the questions correctly, they move on to the next unit. If they fail, they have to retake the test and are assigned "homework" problems for the questions they did not get correct. TAs and graders were there to answer questions (from students not taking tests), grade tests, help with labs and homework, and just keep the flow of the class going.

There's a little more to it than that, but essentially that was the feel of the course. But I remember feeling the weight of the grind as I entered my 6th semester grading. I still enjoyed it, and I still did the job well, but it just really started to weigh on me. I don't know how to explain it at the moment, but it just did.


Honestly, I just have this core feeling that my talents are better utilized doing something else. That's not a knock against engineering or a negative remark of the time and money spent getting the degree. There's a lot of valuable things I took away from my experience in college, and that I still can draw upon in some technical situations I find myself in. I don't regret going through it. I just think that there's something else that's better for me.

Oh yeah, if you feel that your talents are better utilized for something else, then of course it's a good idea to not pursue engineering. I only mentioned those things just in case you didn't know about them.

mikemex Quote:
Me?

Nope, sorry.

[jewels]

I knew an ENFp engineer, but he ended up doing a lot of go-between stuff with different people, sort of like project management. I'm sure he knew his stuff w/ the engineering, but I think they were happy to have an engineer w/ some people skills as well.

I also knew an ISTP engineer who seemed pretty much content, though he'd occasionally bitch about it.

Also knew an ESTJ engineer who like the ENFP, ended up doing a lot of go-between people type stuff, but was also good w/ the details.

[xyz]

I didn't know so many ENFps here have had experiences with Engineering and IT and stuff. Tereg, do you know what your average time is between getting interested in something then moving on to something else?

[tereg]

I didn't know so many ENFps here have had experiences with Engineering and IT and stuff. Tereg, do you know what your average time is between getting interested in something then moving on to something else?

On average? That's pretty difficult to say. I mean I've been interested in things before where I just went all out head first with all my attention focused on it for like, a few hours, and then just as if nothing changed, moved on to something else. I've been interested in things that have lasted several months in time.

Realistically though, for non-spastic impulsive stuff, I'd say the lower end is probably more like a couple of weeks, up to 5-6 months of slowly diminishing interest. If it's a job, usually I start to feel it after about a year, and I start to grind out the job.

Like, playing a particular game, for instance. Open-ended games. When I start off, I probably will be quite entertained and immersed for a few to several months. My friends are playing it with me, cool, I'm enjoying myself. And then something happens over time, and I just gradually play less and less and then I move on to other things that have grabbed my interest that I think are more entertaining than the game at that moment.

Maybe I choose to immerse myself in interacting on a message board, or things going on in sports, whatever it might be.

And then I might come back to that game later, essentially leaving the other thing I'm working on behind, but still keeping an eye on it. The game suddenly looks interesting again, and my friends are still playing it... why not? So, I'll play the game again, but maybe this only lasts 4 weeks this time, then something different interests me and I play less and less again.

Maybe I immerse myself in that YouTube video blog I've been meaning to make for a year, or I finally go and get that dryer repaired.


That is a glimpse of how things usually progress over time.

So, in short, on average, probably a month or two.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I'm sitting here, doing a database (it was required, not a spark of fancy on my part). Anyway, I noticed that it's so much easier if I work on the columns, going down, as opposed to going to the side and finishing one contact, client, whatever, at once. Is this related?

[tereg]

I'm sitting here, doing a database (it was required, not a spark of fancy on my part). Anyway, I noticed that it's so much easier if I work on the columns, going down, as opposed to going to the side and finishing one contact, client, whatever, at once. Is this related?

That might be related, I think.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

That might be related, I think.

But I'm not strong in . How would that work?

[tereg]

But I'm not strong in . How would that work?

Have you ever done a somewhat tedious task, and you come up with a plan of attack, then you start to do it, and then a little bit into it you realize that you can be doing it a better way? Your mind is kind of in that mode when doing tedious tasks, like, ok, let's try to find a good pattern here and I can repeat that almost mindlessly. You tinker ever so slightly with how you execute it out until you finally land on the right pattern. And by that time you're like 1/2 way done with the task.

I mean, the way I see it is, it's something I'm striving for, something I'd like to achieve, but I'm not particularly exceptional at it.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I didn't know so many ENFps here have had experiences with Engineering and IT and stuff. Tereg, do you know what your average time is between getting interested in something then moving on to something else?

*has IT experience* Summer job, tracking phone lines. It was major deja vu today: I walk by an open closet here and hear noises. Some lady's inside, playing a game. I see a glimps of the closet and think, "Hm, wonder if that's a phone closet." Later, I'm in the computer lab and hear a wailing beep. Sure enough, it was a toner; I saw the wires sticking out of the wire blocks. Then, I'm working with Microsoft Access - which we catalogued all our info in last summer - and I come across a problem I couldn't figure out how to fix. Only to figure out after I had fixed it that it's a problem I had last summer, too. Blasted thing. Nice job, though. Steady, but still with time to do my own thing.

Have you ever done a somewhat tedious task, and you come up with a plan of attack, then you start to do it, and then a little bit into it you realize that you can be doing it a better way? Your mind is kind of in that mode when doing tedious tasks, like, ok, let's try to find a good pattern here and I can repeat that almost mindlessly. You tinker ever so slightly with how you execute it out until you finally land on the right pattern. And by that time you're like 1/2 way done with the task.

I mean, the way I see it is, it's something I'm striving for, something I'd like to achieve, but I'm not particularly exceptional at it.

I'll have to search my memory on this.

[svetys]

Is it true that Ne subtype has Se repressed while Fi subtype has Ti repressed?

So logically speaking a Ne subtype is more organized but weaker with things like sports whereas Fi subtype may be better at sports but weaker at organization?

And which is the more withdrawn, quieter subtype? My guess would be the Fi subtype, but most descriptions say that the Ne subtype is more withdrawn.

For me I'm good at sports, but horrible at organization. A simple task of filing is burdensome to me. I also tend to be rather withdrawn. Is that a subtype thing or a teenage thing I've no idea. Probably both. Which subtype will I fall in?

Anyone has real life examples of ENFps and their relevant subtypes?

Hi to everyone

I am Ne IEE subtype (quite clearly), and what you say actually fits me. For surely I am not good at sport, but on the other hand during some time I have managed to develop abilities to cope with problems that involve quite effectively, and sometimes I even do not see it as my "weakness", at least in area of my profession. In some case, because of my aparent seriuosness and frequent withdrawness sometimes I am treated by somebody in national forum as ILE, EII or even as LII (!), which is however untrue.

On the other hand, I think that all things can be fixed after some time, and even if some function is repressed (which according to you is Se, if IEE subtype is Ne), it can be nevertheless improved. And this is what I am trying to do now

regards.

[xyz]

Ryene, Tereg, thanks guys

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Hi to everyone

I am Ne IEE subtype (quite clearly), and what you say actually fits me. For surely I am not good at sport, but on the other hand during some time I have managed to develop abilities to cope with problems that involve quite effectively, and sometimes I even do not see it as my "weakness", at least in area of my profession. In some case, because of my aparent seriuosness and frequent withdrawness sometimes I am treated by somebody in national forum as ILE, EII or even as LII (!), which is however untrue.

On the other hand, I think that all things can be fixed after some time, and even if some function is repressed (which according to you is Se, if IEE subtype is Ne), it can be nevertheless improved. And this is what I am trying to do now

regards.

Hi! Welcome to the boards.

No problem, LV.

[mikemex]

do you know what your average time is between getting interested in something then moving on to something else?

It doesn't work that way.

IEEs are not inconsistent if you understand where they come from. What does socionics teach us? Well, that IEEs are weak on Si and Te. I think Si is pretty easy to understand, but what does it mean to be weak on Te? Well, that you're dead bad at keeping a healthy database of proven procedures and information and thus you're poor at implementing tasks which require a high degree of specialization. This means, in plain terms, that IEE find it difficult to implement a proven procedure, which requires a step by step approach.

It's far easier for an IEE to buy a TV and figure out by him/herself how does it work than to go to the manual and follow the instructions. In the same fashion, it's preferable to the IEE to leave an activity where it no longer requires their Ne+Fi than to force themselves to rely on Te. It's not so much about Ne producing infinite possibilities as it is avoiding to use functions which are not natural to them.

Now on "interest" itself. I belive that IEEs are pretty consistent despite their public image. Observe the life of some famous IEEs and you'll notice that they didn't change their fundamental values and interests over the course of their lives. So why does people think that?

IEEs are non linear. They do not start a task and keep doing it until it's complete. Instead, they stop when they need to reflect or new information (Te HA) and turn over another task. This, combined with the fact that IEEs are static, gives them the ability to resume things months, years of even decades after they left it. For the IEE time does not affect the status of an activity. So most IEE start to finish things only when they become adults. Like I said, it's multitasking at life scale.

[JuJu]

It doesn't work that way.

IEEs are not inconsistent if you understand where they come from. What does socionics teach us? Well, that IEEs are weak on Si and Te. I think Si is pretty easy to understand, but what does it mean to be weak on Te? Well, that you're dead bad at keeping a healthy database of proven procedures and information and thus you're poor at implementing tasks which require a high degree of specialization. This means, in plain terms, that IEE find it difficult to implement a proven procedure, which requires a step by step approach.

It's far easier for an IEE to buy a TV and figure out by him/herself how does it work than to go to the manual and follow the instructions. In the same fashion, it's preferable to the IEE to leave an activity where it no longer requires their Ne+Fi than to force themselves to rely on Te. It's not so much about Ne producing infinite possibilities as it is avoiding to use functions which are not natural to them.

Now on "interest" itself. I belive that IEEs are pretty consistent despite their public image. Observe the life of some famous IEEs and you'll notice that they didn't change their fundamental values and interests over the course of their lives. So why does people think that?

IEEs are non linear. They do not start a task and keep doing it until it's complete. Instead, they stop when they need to reflect or new information (Te HA) and turn over another task. This, combined with the fact that IEEs are static, gives them the ability to resume things months, years of even decades after they left it. For the IEE time does not affect the status of an activity. So most IEE start to finish things only when they become adults. Like I said, it's multitasking at life scale.

All of this is true in my experience, although it doesn't cancel out what tereg wrote about switching interests. I've found that I'm just as likely to drop an interest forever as I am to return to it in the future. (I'll only speak for myself here, although I believe that I've noticed similar patterns with two IEE friends.)

I identify with never reading instructions, with an inability to follow step-by-step procedures, (hence I received a 'C' in Calculus as an undergrad only after making up some pathetic excuse,) and that if you look for overall patterns in their behavior, IEEs can be fairly consistent... But to those not looking at the bigger picture, I have been told (personally) that I look impulsive, engaged in a cycle of disparate interests, and that I have "poor follow-through."

[tereg]

Well, that you're dead bad at keeping a healthy database of proven procedures and information and thus you're poor at implementing tasks which require a high degree of specialization. This means, in plain terms, that IEE find it difficult to implement a proven procedure, which requires a step by step approach.

This is inherent in what you said, but just to iterate it, sometimes I will overdo the step-by-step approach to ensure that I'm not missing something. Even if a method is proven, I still feel like I have to slowly churn through it just to "make sure".

And I do this because I recall other times in other situations where I use methods that are proven, yet still manage to find a way to make a mistake somewhere along the way. The instructions can be right in front of me, spelled out for me, and I will still miss something or speed through it too fast, or just misinterpret something... something like that. So, whenever I'm working through a task that has a step-by-step method to it, I'm always concerned about finding a way to mess it up because it has happened before and it continues to happen when I am "lax" about it.

IEEs are non linear. They do not start a task and keep doing it until it's complete. Instead, they stop when they need to reflect or new information (Te HA) and turn over another task. This, combined with the fact that IEEs are static, gives them the ability to resume things months, years of even decades after they left it. For the IEE time does not affect the status of an activity. So most IEE start to finish things only when they become adults. Like I said, it's multitasking at life scale.

Yes. Although, time can affect the status of an activity if I'm aware of a defined deadline for the task. When things are more open-ended and have no time restraints, all of what you said holds true.

I was talking about the window of time that I spend focused on a task on average before moving on to something else, which does not mean that I abandon it completely. If it's an open ended interest, I will almost inevitably return to it, even if it's months or years down the road.

[Lobo]

It doesn't work that way.

IEEs are not inconsistent if you understand where they come from. What does socionics teach us? Well, that IEEs are weak on Si and Te. I think Si is pretty easy to understand, but what does it mean to be weak on Te? Well, that you're dead bad at keeping a healthy database of proven procedures and information and thus you're poor at implementing tasks which require a high degree of specialization. This means, in plain terms, that IEE find it difficult to implement a proven procedure, which requires a step by step approach.

It's far easier for an IEE to buy a TV and figure out by him/herself how does it work than to go to the manual and follow the instructions. In the same fashion, it's preferable to the IEE to leave an activity where it no longer requires their Ne+Fi than to force themselves to rely on Te. It's not so much about Ne producing infinite possibilities as it is avoiding to use functions which are not natural to them.

Now on "interest" itself. I belive that IEEs are pretty consistent despite their public image. Observe the life of some famous IEEs and you'll notice that they didn't change their fundamental values and interests over the course of their lives. So why does people think that?

IEEs are non linear. They do not start a task and keep doing it until it's complete. Instead, they stop when they need to reflect or new information (Te HA) and turn over another task. This, combined with the fact that IEEs are static, gives them the ability to resume things months, years of even decades after they left it. For the IEE time does not affect the status of an activity. So most IEE start to finish things only when they become adults. Like I said, it's multitasking at life scale.

Sorry man, but I do not agree with and like this post at all, besides that it is gramatically correct... (well, there is that "does" in the third paragraph).

Anyway, I get such a negative vibe from what you wrote. I can't believe that an ENFp, which I've always considered the type with the "I can do anything" mentality, to disbelieve in human potential and to assume that people are "weak at this and that" based on socionics of all things. Socionics is a just a theoretical model of society, it doesn't "teach" you anything... Sure, there are a lot of things that could be explained with it, but I mean, who the hell is going to tell you in what you're going to be good at? or what this "static" thing has anything to do with you in terms of what you'll do? etc.

Your post is dead to me, I expect something different. Of course, I'm exaggerating, but I want to see some Ne, and I want to see some Fi from the ENFps in this forum... None of this negative nonsense.

[mikemex]

...

That's a rant. Are you sure you're getting enough sex? You seem like your sex life isn't going well, and you're directing your frustration toward me.

[Lobo]

That's a rant. Are you sure you're getting enough sex? You seem like your sex life isn't going well, and you're directing your frustration toward me.

Ouch, that was low Dr Ruth. I wasn't really "attacking" you with what I wrote, though it might seem that way... I have to admit that I must probably come off as some sort of asshole sometimes in my posts.

Thinking about it, yeah, it's none of my business to tell somebody how they should apply socionics or whatever in their lives. I just don't agree with using it to justify some shortcomings, that's all.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I'd be curious to know what type you are, Sereno. I acually agree with mikemex's post (not the insult, the other one). It's a very good point, although I would say that myself, I do tend to forever drop some short-term things. However, if I have enough of an interest in something, I'll return to it eventually.

[tereg]

There's something else that I thought of that I tend to do that I think is a related thing (but might also incorporate ).

There are times when I will work on a task, and then suddenly feel the urge to go, "Ok, that's it. I'm starting over from scratch" in some fit of frustration when starting from scratch isn't really necessary and regardless of the amount of work I've put into the task. Even if I've spent days working on something, numbering several hours, that doesn't seem to matter. I'm almost too willing to sacrifice and throw away my own work and time. I either have to force myself to continue from the middle because of time restraints, have someone else convince me why I shouldn't start over, or abandon the project completely.

When someone points out that I don't have to start completely from scratch, there's this resistance I feel to follow the advice. And to a degree I still don't think I can quite explain why, but I think what's happening is there's this concern that always lingers that the impurity of my work will not be purged completely unless I start from the beginning. If I start from the middle and just back up a few steps, I'm always left wondering if I'm overlooking something deeper that can come up later and just putting a band-aid on the problem.

The majority of time that I waste on tasks is because of things like this-- following the urge to backtrack farther than I should and then completely redoing something a second time (or more in some extreme cases).

And honestly, I couldn't tell you if the way that I redo something has benefitted enough to outweigh the time originally spent to justify doing it. My hunch is that I'm overcompensating, but I'm not confident enough to know for sure.

[anndelise]

There's something else that I thought of that I tend to do that I think is a related thing (but might also incorporate ).

There are times when I will work on a task, and then suddenly feel the urge to go, "Ok, that's it. I'm starting over from scratch" in some fit of frustration when starting from scratch isn't really necessary and regardless of the amount of work I've put into the task. Even if I've spent days working on something, numbering several hours, that doesn't seem to matter. I'm almost too willing to sacrifice and throw away my own work and time. I either have to force myself to continue from the middle because of time restraints, have someone else convince me why I shouldn't start over, or abandon the project completely.

When someone points out that I don't have to start completely from scratch, there's this resistance I feel to follow the advice. And to a degree I still don't think I can quite explain why, but I think what's happening is there's this concern that always lingers that the impurity of my work will not be purged completely unless I start from the beginning. If I start from the middle and just back up a few steps, I'm always left wondering if I'm overlooking something deeper that can come up later and just putting a band-aid on the problem.

The majority of time that I waste on tasks is because of things like this-- following the urge to backtrack farther than I should and then completely redoing something a second time (or more in some extreme cases).

And honestly, I couldn't tell you if the way that I redo something has benefitted enough to outweigh the time originally spent to justify doing it. My hunch is that I'm overcompensating, but I'm not confident enough to know for sure.

Often times I'll start something by following the step-by-step procedure for something I want to learn how to do. I have a difficult time turning written instructions into actual doing, prefering a more visual/kinesthetic approach to learning to do. But as I begin to progress through the steps, rereading the instructions to make sure that I'm catching things that I had missed the first few attempts, I begin to notice what it is that the instructions are trying to get me to do. Often times I'll then notice that the instructions missed out on something that would have made learning the thing easier, etc. Or I'll glimpse a way of doing the thing better/easier/more effecient. And I'll often completely dump what i had done so far and restart with the newer understanding I have.

Then when things begin to get more complex again, I slow down again, go through the learning process again, begin to see ways of making it easier/better/etc, and again completely restart. Though most often, by this time, I'll set the whole thing aside and start something new, and pick this particular thing up later.

There's only so many times I can restart before I get bored of the beginning process.

Unfortunately, I also seldom actually finish anything. But I do walk away with a better insight to the thing so that if a friend decides to learn the thing, I have some little tidbits I can pass on to them that helps ease their own learning process.

[tereg]

Often times I'll start something by following the step-by-step procedure for something I want to learn how to do. I have a difficult time turning written instructions into actual doing, prefering a more visual/kinesthetic approach to learning to do. But as I begin to progress through the steps, rereading the instructions to make sure that I'm catching things that I had missed the first few attempts, I begin to notice what it is that the instructions are trying to get me to do. Often times I'll then notice that the instructions missed out on something that would have made learning the thing easier, etc. Or I'll glimpse a way of doing the thing better/easier/more effecient. And I'll often completely dump what i had done so far and restart with the newer understanding I have.

Then when things begin to get more complex again, I slow down again, go through the learning process again, begin to see ways of making it easier/better/etc, and again completely restart. Though most often, by this time, I'll set the whole thing aside and start something new, and pick this particular thing up later.

There's only so many times I can restart before I get bored of the beginning process.

Unfortunately, I also seldom actually finish anything. But I do walk away with a better insight to the thing so that if a friend decides to learn the thing, I have some little tidbits I can pass on to them that helps ease their own learning process.

Yes! All of this. That is exactly what I do.

What an awesome explanation.

[Lobo]

I'd be curious to know what type you are, Sereno. I acually agree with mikemex's post (not the insult, the other one). It's a very good point, although I would say that myself, I do tend to forever drop some short-term things. However, if I have enough of an interest in something, I'll return to it eventually.

INFj...

There's something else that I thought of that I tend to do that I think is a related thing (but might also incorporate ).

There are times when I will work on a task, and then suddenly feel the urge to go, "Ok, that's it. I'm starting over from scratch" in some fit of frustration when starting from scratch isn't really necessary and regardless of the amount of work I've put into the task. Even if I've spent days working on something, numbering several hours, that doesn't seem to matter. I'm almost too willing to sacrifice and throw away my own work and time. I either have to force myself to continue from the middle because of time restraints, have someone else convince me why I shouldn't start over, or abandon the project completely.

When someone points out that I don't have to start completely from scratch, there's this resistance I feel to follow the advice. And to a degree I still don't think I can quite explain why, but I think what's happening is there's this concern that always lingers that the impurity of my work will not be purged completely unless I start from the beginning. If I start from the middle and just back up a few steps, I'm always left wondering if I'm overlooking something deeper that can come up later and just putting a band-aid on the problem.

The majority of time that I waste on tasks is because of things like this-- following the urge to backtrack farther than I should and then completely redoing something a second time (or more in some extreme cases).

And honestly, I couldn't tell you if the way that I redo something has benefitted enough to outweigh the time originally spent to justify doing it. My hunch is that I'm overcompensating, but I'm not confident enough to know for sure.

I get everything you're saying here, since I do the same. I also got what anndelise was saying too. However, the part I have bolded in your post I understand completely... It's the uncomfortable feeling of working on something that is not entirely "pure" in that it has some sort of problem or mistake. My automatic desire is to start all over, thinking that I will make it even better than before and avoid the previous mistakes.

Though harsh, I've even taken this "starting over" as a philosophy to the broader scale of things... But, I have reconsidered it.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

It doesn't work that way.

IEEs are not inconsistent if you understand where they come from. What does socionics teach us? Well, that IEEs are weak on Si and Te. I think Si is pretty easy to understand, but what does it mean to be weak on Te? Well, that you're dead bad at keeping a healthy database of proven procedures and information and thus you're poor at implementing tasks which require a high degree of specialization. This means, in plain terms, that IEE find it difficult to implement a proven procedure, which requires a step by step approach.

It's far easier for an IEE to buy a TV and figure out by him/herself how does it work than to go to the manual and follow the instructions. In the same fashion, it's preferable to the IEE to leave an activity where it no longer requires their Ne+Fi than to force themselves to rely on Te. It's not so much about Ne producing infinite possibilities as it is avoiding to use functions which are not natural to them.

Now on "interest" itself. I belive that IEEs are pretty consistent despite their public image. Observe the life of some famous IEEs and you'll notice that they didn't change their fundamental values and interests over the course of their lives. So why does people think that?

IEEs are non linear. They do not start a task and keep doing it until it's complete. Instead, they stop when they need to reflect or new information (Te HA) and turn over another task. This, combined with the fact that IEEs are static, gives them the ability to resume things months, years of even decades after they left it. For the IEE time does not affect the status of an activity. So most IEE start to finish things only when they become adults. Like I said, it's multitasking at life scale.

Sorry man, but I do not agree with and like this post at all, besides that it is gramatically correct... (well, there is that "does" in the third paragraph).

Anyway, I get such a negative vibe from what you wrote. I can't believe that an ENFp, which I've always considered the type with the "I can do anything" mentality, to disbelieve in human potential and to assume that people are "weak at this and that" based on socionics of all things. Socionics is a just a theoretical model of society, it doesn't "teach" you anything... Sure, there are a lot of things that could be explained with it, but I mean, who the hell is going to tell you in what you're going to be good at? or what this "static" thing has anything to do with you in terms of what you'll do? etc.

Your post is dead to me, I expect something different. Of course, I'm exaggerating, but I want to see some Ne, and I want to see some Fi from the ENFps in this forum... None of this negative nonsense.

I can't say I disbelieve in human potential; I just don't see them fulfilling it. I don't think they care enough. I see plenty of weaknesses in myself and sometimes in others, Sereno, so to say we don't see people as weak at certain things is incorrect. The other IEEs are welcome to comment on this as well; I'd actually enjoy their feedback. That said, we don't know everything they'll be weak at, but for example, in my dealings with the ILIs, I've had some conflicts. I attribute this to the weak Fi on their part (tact /niceness doesn't seem to be their strong point). If you don't see a lot of negativity over such things coming from us, perhaps it is our Fi-over-Fe that you're experiencing. Again, IEEs please comment.

INFj...

Perhaps that is why you disagree with him? I can't say for sure, but it is worth considering. We do see things in slightly different ways. BTW, I loved the "let's see more Fi" part, given that you're Fi-leading. You're showing your EII-ness.

[anndelise]

To Sereno, an add on to what Ryene wrote:

It doesn't work that way.

IEEs are not inconsistent if you understand where they come from. What does socionics teach us? Well, that IEEs are weak on Si and Te. I think Si is pretty easy to understand, but what does it mean to be weak on Te? Well, that you're dead bad at keeping a healthy database of proven procedures and information and thus you're poor at implementing tasks which require a high degree of specialization. This means, in plain terms, that IEE find it difficult to implement a proven procedure, which requires a step by step approach.

It's far easier for an IEE to buy a TV and figure out by him/herself how does it work than to go to the manual and follow the instructions. In the same fashion, it's preferable to the IEE to leave an activity where it no longer requires their Ne+Fi than to force themselves to rely on Te. It's not so much about Ne producing infinite possibilities as it is avoiding to use functions which are not natural to them.

Now on "interest" itself. I belive that IEEs are pretty consistent despite their public image. Observe the life of some famous IEEs and you'll notice that they didn't change their fundamental values and interests over the course of their lives. So why does people think that?

IEEs are non linear. They do not start a task and keep doing it until it's complete. Instead, they stop when they need to reflect or new information (Te HA) and turn over another task. This, combined with the fact that IEEs are static, gives them the ability to resume things months, years of even decades after they left it. For the IEE time does not affect the status of an activity. So most IEE start to finish things only when they become adults. Like I said, it's multitasking at life scale.

Sorry man, but I do not agree with and like this post at all, besides that it is gramatically correct... (well, there is that "does" in the third paragraph).

Anyway, I get such a negative vibe from what you wrote. I can't believe that an ENFp, which I've always considered the type with the "I can do anything" mentality, to disbelieve in human potential and to assume that people are "weak at this and that" based on socionics of all things. Socionics is a just a theoretical model of society, it doesn't "teach" you anything... Sure, there are a lot of things that could be explained with it, but I mean, who the hell is going to tell you in what you're going to be good at? or what this "static" thing has anything to do with you in terms of what you'll do? etc.

Your post is dead to me, I expect something different. Of course, I'm exaggerating, but I want to see some Ne, and I want to see some Fi from the ENFps in this forum... None of this negative nonsense.

I can't say I disbelieve in human potential; I just don't see them fulfilling it. I don't think they care enough. I see plenty of weaknesses in myself and sometimes in others, Sereno, so to say we don't see people as weak at certain things is incorrect. The other IEEs are welcome to comment on this as well; I'd actually enjoy their feedback. That said, we don't know everything they'll be weak at, but for example, in my dealings with the ILIs, I've had some conflicts. I attribute this to the weak Fi on their part (tact /niceness doesn't seem to be their strong point). If you don't see a lot of negativity over such things coming from us, perhaps it is our Fi-over-Fe that you're experiencing. Again, IEEs please comment.

To be honest, I didn't get a negative vibe from what mikemex wrote. It seemed that he was merely attempting to use socionics to explain ENFps..after the fact. As in, awareness of what ENFps do, and then using socionics terms to try to explain it.

I also didn't see it as showing ENFps not having an "I can do anything" mentality. Anytime a type has to move out of their primary ego functions and utilize another function, they are having to expend more energy to utilize the other functions. The less familiar they are with using that skill/ability/information, the more energy it will require to use it. I think ANY type would find that sometimes it's best to just stop "wasting" energy and put their energy to better usage. However, that doesn't mean inability. Just weakness in that particular area. Most people do not want to feel weak. Many people do not have an interest in developing their weak areas. It requires a lot of energy to do so. There is nothing wrong with that.

I believe that ENFps DO believe in human potential. Also individual potential. But I believe that most enfps also know that not every individual will reach every potential. That some individuals have potential in areas that others don't. And that some individuals (including ourselves) would be better served delegating certain things to others who have a better potential of fulfilling that need than we would. There is nothing negative about this, imo.

Also, regarding the "negative nonsense". One thing to keep in mind is that supposedly, according to some aspects of socionics, ENFps are negativists, INFjs are positivists. I guess it's still open for grabs as to whether "negativist" means "downer", "critical", "can't", or 'noticing what's not there'. I personally believe that it's closer to noticing what's not there. But even this leaves a lot of room for …mmm.. expression? I mean, in terms of human potential it could be
* noticing what the person is unable to do
* noticing what the person is unwilling to do
* noticing what the person has difficulty doing
* noticing what the person lacks unwillingness to do (they may not WANT to do it, but they also may not NOT want to do it..they are more neutral towards it)
* noticing what the person doesn't lack difficulty doing (if given a choice between doing something I have difficulty with and asking someone who has less difficulty with it than me, depending on the degree of difference, I will most likely ask for help or delegate to that person) (and of course, if the person has NO difficulty with the thing, and perhaps even enjoys it, then definitely ask them for help or delegate to them)
* etc

(Note: It's also probably up for grabs as to whether the negativist/positivist thing would be better described as Ne-+Fi and Fi+-Ne for delta NFs)

(Note2: Regardless of the negativist/positivist thing, I still don't see it as being "negative" as in downer/weak to be aware of lack of potential or lack of potential fulfillment. In fact, I'd call it realistic. )

[anndelise]

Realistically speaking, the glass that is half full is half empty.

I suppose one could also say that a glass that is half empty is also half full.

[Slacker]

Or that the glass was made twice as big as it needed to be.