# How to tell the difference between ESTJ and ISTJ



## grumpytiger

Dscross said:


> I've never heard that before. I've heard it said that ENFPs are meant be be matched to INFJs or INTJs (but I don't know any females of those types except one ex-co-worker, so I can't comment on it's accuracy). Your matches are meant to be ESFP or the ESTP - who are completely different. Think you need to check your Myers Briggs match charts.


Look. You go into the ISTJ forum on here and see the fucking stupid ISTJ-ENFP relationships thread right there in the stickied threads. That's where this bullshit is being spread.




> My brother is an XSTJ (leaning towards an ISTJ?)


I responded to your OP actually on your brother's type, did you not see it? It's in post #6.




Blue Ribbon said:


> @Dscross ESTJs are a lot more sociable, in the sense that they try to appear in good spirits and foster good relationships with others. Often times, ESTJs will pretend to like people they don't really like. This is not them being fake, it's just that inferior Fi makes it hard for both ExTJ types to know where they stand with other people. Sometimes, I wonder if I should like or dislike someone, for example. ESTJs tend to treat people cordially in that sense. Maybe it's after a party or an event of spending the whole time with a person do they realize that they don't actually like them. Another thing is meeting someone they dislike and thinking "Would it really be that bad spending time with this person. I mean, are they really as bad as I thought they were?"
> 
> ISTJs are a lot more transparent, ime with who they like/dislike etc. ESTJs can come across as mean, but it's not intentional. ISTJs wouldn't have any problems being mean to someone on purpose, I think.
> 
> So, ExTJs can flip flop on whether they like someone. IxTJs don't have that issue I think. Hopefully this was useful to you.


I would confirm that your distinction of ESTJ vs ISTJ works in my case. I personally can't be that sociable and cordial easily. But yeah I've seen some people who are supposedly ESTJs be really sociable and cordial, it's cool actually. 

And especially, this kind of unawareness of who I care for is foreign to me. Lol and I don't really like to act mean btw but if I have to set myself against someone, I will. It just has to be really justified though for me to decide to act against someone. Not without a serious reason. I can be blunt and overly straightforward for some people's liking and quite honestly I do not always care if I sound too blunt (it depends), but actual meanness is on a level beyond that... And I take this issue seriously.


----------



## grumpytiger

sriracha said:


> It's not a bullshit idea. Not just including myself, but I know a good number of ISTJs that like xNFPs. I have no idea where you got the idea in the first place about ISTJs and ENFPs being meant for each other, because there are way more threads/posts about ENFP-INxJ pairings.


You too go into the ISTJ forum and look at the stickied threads...

It IS definitely a bullshit idea that ISTJ and ENFP is the best pairing. It's taken from some other typology system, and I don't think it makes sense in any way. My own experience also indicates differently. In a close relationship, I don't work well with most P types, ENFP included. When I say "most P" types, it does depend a little bit on type, for example ESTP is better than ENFP.




> Differing from you, I have no desire to control people or things, and I will only do so if they are in the way of me reaching my goal. When situations turn out the way I do not want them to, my natural reaction is to walk away if possible. I do this because I hate making decisions for others, and it feels manipulating which is dirty to me. It is only when I have to deal with the situation that I start to put things under control. In my minority opinion compared to pretty much everyone I meet and users online, *Fe is more controlling than Te*. The difference is that Fe can make others feel good while controlling, so the people being controlled do not sense any bad being done to them. Te doesn't tend to feelings; Te is unattached. And people do not react good to that.


I don't like to give up and walk away if I want something. Otherwise sure, I can leave a place if I don't like it.

To be very clear on the control thing: by default I go about my own stuff, focusing on my little systematic details lol, but yes sometimes I do get involved to control or at least influence how things go, this happens when my goal requires it, or it aligns with the goal of other people, or when I do care about at least one other person involved. I am totally fine with doing this when I see the point to it. And yes I get seen as quite controlling then by some people. Quite honestly though, if the goal of other people doesn't align with mine I just prefer to leave. Because I have no interest in taking charge just for the sake of taking charge, that just sounds too much effort and pointless for me.




> On a side note, are you sure you're an ISTJ?


Yes. Thank-you.




> I've read many of your posts over the past few months and they do not sound like they're from an ISTJ. I can easily understand where an ISTJ is coming from even when their values or way of living life differ from mine, because ISTJs process things in the same way using their functions. When I read your posts, they sound completely foreign, non-ISTJ.


Foreign to your concept of an ISTJ, whatever it may be.




> You can send me a PM if you'd like.


No, why should I? lol...

If you wish to flesh out your thoughts, you can do so in my MBTI type thread, though it's old, I don't mind you posting in it, if you feel like it. I am ok with it because I don't mind people having their own thoughts on stuff in general. I may just call bullshit when it's bullshit lol, but no one should take that personally.

I don't get offended by people questioning my type either, though I'm sure in my typing otherwise. Last but not least, I also may tell others what I think so it's only fair if I let you speak out too, and for that my type thread is just fine.


----------



## sriracha

grumpytiger said:


> You too go into the ISTJ forum and look at the stickied threads...
> 
> It IS definitely a bullshit idea that ISTJ and ENFP is the best pairing. It's taken from some other typology system, and I don't think it makes sense in any way. My own experience also indicates differently. In a close relationship, I don't work well with most P types, ENFP included. When I say "most P" types, it does depend a little bit on type, for example ESTP is better than ENFP.


As far as I know, no one claimed that ISTJ and ENFP is the best pairing. Just because a thread is stickied does not mean that the relationship is being promoted. The reason why that thread is stickied is because there once were a lot of ENFPs that came into the ISTJ subforum asking for relationship advice. A lot of the same issues came up and so, many threads were created by different users talking about the same problems. It was good to have just one thread going so that others can reference back to it. Of course, anyone can create their own thread. But that thread is a good reference for any ENFP-ISTJ pairing, because it has a lot of common problems that come up with this pairing and solutions to them.



> If you wish to flesh out your thoughts, you can do so in my MBTI type thread, though it's old, I don't mind you posting in it, if you feel like it. I am ok with it because I don't mind people having their own thoughts on stuff in general. I may just call bullshit when it's bullshit lol, but no one should take that personally.
> 
> I don't get offended by people questioning my type either, though I'm sure in my typing otherwise. Last but not least, I also may tell others what I think so it's only fair if I let you speak out too, and for that my type thread is just fine.


Sounds good, I will post in your thread.


----------



## Belzy

I really don't feel like thinking through types that much anymore, but I am quite surprised how someone cannot tell the difference between ISTJ and ESTJ, while that one is perhaps the most obvious to me to tell apart from each other.

I don't know enough about your brother to say what he is, but your short points do seem to suggest ISTJ over ESTJ.


----------



## Dscross

Belzy said:


> I really don't feel like thinking through types that much anymore, but I am quite surprised how someone cannot tell the difference between ISTJ and ESTJ, while that one is perhaps the most obvious to me to tell apart from each other.
> 
> I don't know enough about your brother to say what he is, but your short points do seem to suggest ISTJ over ESTJ.


How 'easy' types are to tell apart depends on the rest of their personality, social conditioning and how far on the spectrum they are with each preference. Also, like XNFPs, their functions are the same but in a different order. Their main two are swapped around. Maybe the people you know are more obvious than my brother. Surely it would be easier to tell the difference between something like an ENFP and an ISTJ than those two. It seems odd to say ISTJs and ESTJs are the easiest to tell apart.


----------



## grumpytiger

sriracha said:


> As far as I know, no one claimed that ISTJ and ENFP is the best pairing. Just because a thread is stickied does not mean that the relationship is being promoted.


And I never stated that it being stickied means that... So please just do not assume things that were not said, nor implied. It gets annoying. 

Especially as I explicitly discussed the origin of the bullshit notion in that post of mine to you, and, additionally, in another post above I explicitly noted that that thread is where this bullshit is being spread. In that thread. (And sometimes in other threads too.)

But even just the direct mention of the origin of the idea should've made it clear enough that your assumption could not have been anything I'd imply.

All in all, before you again say that you haven't heard of the idea so it cannot exist, please go read more.




> The reason why that thread is stickied is because there once were a lot of ENFPs that came into the ISTJ subforum asking for relationship advice. A lot of the same issues came up and so, many threads were created by different users talking about the same problems. It was good to have just one thread going so that others can reference back to it. Of course, anyone can create their own thread. But that thread is a good reference for any ENFP-ISTJ pairing, because it has a lot of common problems that come up with this pairing and solutions to them.


That's some interesting history to the thread, but what I said is true too, as a more recent development apparently.




> Sounds good, I will post in your thread.


Cool, sure, go ahead.


----------



## Belzy

Dscross said:


> How 'easy' types are to tell apart depends on the rest of their personality, social conditioning and how far on the spectrum they are with each preference. Also, like XNFPs, their functions are the same but in a different order. Their main two are swapped around. Maybe the people you know are more obvious than my brother. Surely it would be easier to tell the difference between something like an ENFP and an ISTJ than those two. It seems odd to say ISTJs and ESTJs are the easiest to tell apart.


For me it is, because ESTJ lies right into my allergy, whereas ISTJ I feel very comfy with. I can tell apart purely based on the kind of energy I am receiving from them, and can later easily explain it through analysing it also.

The presense or lack of a Te-dom function is way too noticeable for me.


----------



## grumpytiger

One more note on the control thing... So I go by principles and rules for behaviour, ok, but I only get them expressed for others expecting to be on the same page with them if I'm to work with them for some reason, and even then I only care to share the ones that are really relevant and important. Also when I say I expect to be on the same page with some people, I'm also open to negotiating so to speak, that is, I'm willing to listen to what they want, and we can work together to get on the same page... But yes, this too gets seen as controlling by some people. Some people simply want to go around free of commitments.


----------



## Dscross

grumpytiger said:


> One more note on the control thing... So I go by principles and rules for behaviour, ok, but I only get them expressed for others expecting to be on the same page with them if I'm to work with them for some reason, and even then I only care to share the ones that are really relevant and important. Also when I say I expect to be on the same page with some people, I'm also open to negotiating so to speak, that is, I'm willing to listen to what they want, and we can work together to get on the same page... But yes, this too gets seen as controlling by some people. Some people simply want to go around free of commitments.


I don't think it's fair to put it as 'free of commitments'. It's just a different way of doing things and thinking. Te and Si are my 3rd and 4th functions, so I understand them to a degree. We know it's important to work towards goals in life. It's just we don't feel like it's usually necessary to try and have control over our environment (or others) to do it. That's all.


----------



## grumpytiger

Dscross said:


> I don't think it's fair to put it as 'free of commitments'. It's just a different way of doing things and thinking. Te and Si are my 3rd and 4th functions, so I understand them to a degree. We know it's important to work towards goals in life. It's just we don't feel like it's usually necessary to try and have control over our environment (or others) to do it. That's all.


Then I'll put it as, free of most commitments. Because such people get stressed over too much commitment. And they reach their limit pretty fast. But yeah, sometimes they can keep to some commitments decently well, just then they reach their limit if more are expected. (In worse cases, they reach their limit even for upholding previous commitment or obligation but I was not trying to insinuate that originally.) My experiences... and these people do often admit to being this way, as well.


----------



## Dscross

grumpytiger said:


> Then I'll put it as, free of most commitments. Because such people get stressed over too much commitment. And they reach their limit pretty fast. But yeah, sometimes they can keep to some commitments decently well, just then they reach their limit if more are expected. (In worse cases, they reach their limit even for upholding previous commitment or obligation but I was not trying to insinuate that originally.) My experiences... and these people do often admit to being this way, as well.


Don't think that's fair either. It's a sweeping generalisation. For example, I am extremely driven, but I go about life in a different way. I just won't prioritise the same things or consider the same things as important. I am committed to what I what to be committed to. It does not involve having to control things and I don't think it's necessary to do that to get what you want - and I like to consider other people as well. I think you are misunderstanding people with NP and SP temperaments.


----------



## Aiwass

IMO, ISTJ can be somewhat softer because of their tert Fi and as mentioned before, quieter. 

ESTJs are actually closer to ENTJs than they are to ISTJs. Their autopilot mode is always on Te. They are practical, outwardly-oriented and most of the times, not very introspective.


----------



## Dscross

Aiwass said:


> IMO, ISTJ can be somewhat softer because of their tert Fi and as mentioned before, quieter.
> 
> ESTJs are actually closer to ENTJs than they are to ISTJs. Their autopilot mode is always on Te. They are practical, outwardly-oriented and most of the times, not very introspective.


I don't agree with that, from the ones I know. The Ni in ENTJs makes a hell of difference.


----------



## grumpytiger

Dscross said:


> Don't think that's fair either. It's a sweeping generalisation. For example, I am extremely driven, but I go about life in a different way. I just won't prioritise the same things or consider the same things as important. I am committed to what I what to be committed to. It does not involve having to control things and I don't think it's necessary to do that to get what you want - and I like to consider other people as well. I think you are misunderstanding people with NP and SP temperaments.


I was not making any sweeping generalisations whatsoever. And I don't misunderstand those people any more than you misunderstand my pov here as an SJ. You are reading things into my lines that I've never said. I've never said that these people are unable to commit to anything or that they cannot go for goals or be driven. Please reread, thank you.


----------



## grumpytiger

sriracha said:


> Sounds good, I will post in your thread.


Up for posting your thoughts? Like I said I don't mind.


----------

