# Seriously, differnce between ENFP & ENTP



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

Most often, I come up ENFP, but ENTP seems to fit my description better.

"Tests are shit -- research yourself." I understand and I have, but I feel like I am a near perfect balance. I'm both.

When I try, I succeed at literally everything. It's ridiculous, not here to brag...but to understand why. I hate that others try so much harder and cannot -- eats me alive. 

Based on the in-depth descriptions, with the Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, stuff; sorry I am a bit too lazy but honestly too busy to look into it. Yes, important things that I am not bullshitting. This is where I lose out; I am very keen to my self-awareness in the sense where I work to fix everything I see as a realistic problem. Which leads to:

"known knows, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns"

Please just, with sophistication, describe the difference between ENTP and ENFP


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

It's something of an internet forum cliché, in my experience, that, if there's a single MBTI type most often associated with treating debates/discussions/etc. as games and being willing to take insincere positions, play devil's advocate, throw things out just to get a reaction, bullshit people and so on, it's the ENTP. I'd say that's significantly more characteristic of ENTPs than ENFPs, as is a somewhat related tendency to be one-uppy in conversations. And it's not typically done with any malicious intent, but it can sometimes rub people the wrong way.

Would you say you have a significant streak along those lines or would you say that, if you're engaged in a debate, you're almost always going to be telling people what your authentic views are on the issue?

_ENFP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers

_ENTP Profiles_
MBTI Manual (2nd Ed.)
MBTI Manual (3rd Ed.)
Keirsey (Please Understand Me)
Kroeger & Thuesen (Type Talk)
Hirsh & Kummerow (Lifetypes [abridged])
Berens & Nardi
personalitypage: Portrait
personalitypage: Personal Growth
personalitypage: Relationships
personalitypage: Careers


----------



## BakerStreet (May 1, 2014)

Based on the ENXPs I know...

ENFPs: More concerned with the originality of their personality, more individualistic
Under stress, tend to feel overwhelmed and as though others are overburdening them with deadlines/ expectations
Think of people like Mark Twain, Walt Disney… My ENFP friends insist Daniel Radcliffe is one too...

ENTPs: More concerned with the originality of their ideas, can be people-pleasers or at least appear more relaxed among others
Under stress, tend to become more flighty, flouting rules that they do not see as convenient to them
Socrates & Voltaire are good examples of ENTPs… Also Robert Downey Jr, Stephen Colbert, etc.

Hope this helps!


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

laterally38 said:


> Based on the in-depth descriptions, with the Ne, Ni, Fe, Fi, stuff; sorry I am a bit too lazy but honestly too busy to look into it. *Yes, important things that I am not bullshitting.*


k

My immediate impression was Se dominant (ESxP). With the arrogance and the practicality and the disinterest in theory. These things are of little importance though, you have to take the time to understand the theory if you want to know your type.

...and now I see the sig. Glorified types upon glorified types. I'm not saying you've picked those types because they're cool, but yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.


----------



## JoyfulPilgram (May 7, 2014)

Great question!

First lets see how they are the same:

ENFPs and ENTPs share the same primary dominant function (extraverted intuition - Ne), and the same inferior function (introverted sensing - Si). But what does that mean? ENTPs and ENFPs are both rare (and colorful) birds with Ne as the primary function (the only 2 in fact). Ne (extroverted intuition) picks up ideas and patterns (sometimes bizarre and often brilliant) in the environment, that others may never see. Since this is the primary function for ENTPs and ENFPs, they are BOTH absorbing mass amounts of information and constantly sifting it out in the brain to form NEW ideas. ENFPs and ENTPs also share the same inferior function Si (introverted sensing), which seeks past experience (tradition) to help make decisions. The inferior function is not a dominant player but something that both ENTPs and ENFPs can grow and mature into. To sum up, ENFPs and ENTPs share a dominant primary function of Ne (extraverted intuition), which is generating lots of ideas from the environment and both are seeking maturity in valuing tradition. For both personalities, the inferior tends to hide. 

Now for the differences:

The difference is in their secondary and third (tertiary) function. ENFP has a secondary of Fi (introverted feeling) while the ENTP has Ti (introverted thinking). Remember that the secondary function is the sidekick to the primary function, so ENFPs and ENTPs are BOTH picking up lots of ideas about the environment through Ne, however the ENFP is sorting these ideas through feelings (is that good or bad?) while the ENTP is sorting it out through logic (does that make sense logically?, is that consistent?). So this is why ENFPs "bazzoka" of Ne is often directed toward relationships, because they like thinking and internalizing feelings from the patterns they see (patterns and ideas found about/in people). For ENTPs it is not as driven relationally. It is tricky because ENFPs can be some of the most logical/mathematical/etc. people out there (just as much as ENTP) due to the dominant function of Ne (that both types share), which is picking up loads of ideas about everything, however the ENFP is more prone to driving these ideas by their feelings and what they feel about the ideas (how does this idea stack with my moral system, is it good?). What makes it so interesting (and where it starts getting weird) is the third function. For an ENFP it is Te (extraverted thinking). Meaning that the second biggest way (the tertiary function) the ENFP expresses himself/herself after Ne is through thinking out loud with other people. So what does that mean? It means that an ENFP can come across to others to be a Mr. Thinker/Logical type, while hiding a highly developed internal sense of values based on feelings. On the other hand, the second biggest (tertiary function) for the ENTP is Fe, which means they can come across as Mr. Gushy/Feelers, while hiding a highly developed internal decision making system based on weighing consistency through logical reasoning. 

THE CONCLUSION BASED ON ALL THIS INFORMATION:

ENFPs and ENTPs share a masterful weapon Ne, which picks up ideas on everything. This ability compounded with the tertiary functions that seem to mislead others on the internal system within, means that ENTPs and ENFPs can pull out lots of extraverted variety, especially the ENFP (especially the ENFP!). So the key is the secondary, the internal. Is it feeling driven, based on "good and bad"? If so then you are probably an ENFP. Are you more relationally driven? Probably an ENFP. Furthermore, ENFPs tend to be very reserved of their deep feelings (in part because of Fi) while ENTPs may not be reserved in the same area (Fe). If you are the type that can get along with almost everyone (by pulling out your multi facets of your personality) but often struggle to truly let someone see you, then you might be an ENFP. You said that you are good at everything, ENFPs often have that trait, but it might just be a strong Ne, which ENFPs and ENTPs share.

***DISCLAIMER***
I wrote all of this and am now on the verge of deleting it. Why? Because there are so many holes in Meyers Briggs. As an ENFP matures, they may look TOTALLY DIFFERENT then the personality type description. Take my word for it. It is like this is just the starting point and then you can leave a lot of it behind for good. Picking up new strengths and leaving old weaknesses. For instance, an ENFP is stereotypically claimed to not be good at finishing projects, BUT this (classic) ENFP (the one writing this post) no longer deals with that issue. Furthermore, choosing careers that may seem to go against your personality type may be the most healthy decision you can make because of the substantial growth the job offers, rather than slipping in with comfortable "old hat". Meyers Briggs is very correct, but it is not strong enough to hold the complexities of human nature, it just can't hold the weight. You need to seek personal growth from other sources, from the ultimate source (some refer to it as the "good news").


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Fi/Te and Ti/Fe are the part that's a lot different. Even when a person of a strong tertiary is around, it's kind of noticeable which orientation it's in.
People who know those well can maybe be a difference but unfortunately people who erroneously attribute things as one function often manage to make 4 functions seem interchangeable.

This is one time when I like the Socionics construct. Point of least resistance gives a process of elimination.
There won't be major differences since they're both Ne types but in ambiverted versions, the different auxiliary tends to interact very differently in one type vs the other.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

BakerStreet said:


> Based on the ENXPs I know...
> 
> ENFPs: More concerned with the originality of their personality, more individualistic
> Under stress, tend to feel overwhelmed and as though others are overburdening them with deadlines/ expectations
> ...


God damn it all. I relate more to the ENFP description, yet @arkigos is adamant that I am not.

fuuuuuucccckkkk meeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

In the context of Myers Briggs, which I assume the location of this inquiry is meant to emphasize.... I'd say take the test, read the descriptions, and select the best fit. MBTI assessment successfully accomplished. 

If you want to discuss it in the context of cognitive functions, aka, NeFi vs NeTi, then that is a different story.

For what it is worth, in either context I doubt you are an ENFP @_laterally38_. In this post and many others I don't think that personal value and personal nuance in social interactions are your conscious go-to, at least not in comparison to what I have experienced and tend to envision for ENFP. I assume, I think rightly, that you would be a Thinker. 

Perhaps it is a binary of Thinking and Feeling that troubles you? In MBTI there is no such binary, but a gamut.

If it is, to you, a toss up, then why force yourself into a binary that doesn't represent that?

-------

Cognitive function based descriptions shot from the hip:

That ENTP tends to engage deeply into any thing to analyze it logically... to give it the most concise name, to structure it and organize it in an abstract way. To solve it for themselves... often an involved process that pulls them away from more objective interpretations. This may include big questions of ethics, of value, and of right and wrong, but those observations tend to be more objective, more broad strokes, less internalized unless by logic... to organize them and name them and give them a logical answer. The philosopher's approach to broad questions of value. 


That ENFP tends to engage deeply into any thing to ruminate on how it is personally valued... to assign it the most concise personal esteem, to determine in a conscious but very personal way an impression of the right and wrong of it. To feel it for themselves... often an involved process the pulls them away from more objective interpretations. This may often include critical assessments and observations in a more logical vein, but these are not ruminated on, but are rather taken quite 'as is' and objectively, often (too) quickly sized up without internalizing or analyzing them logically. A personalized approach to, perhaps, more critical concerns. 

The ENFP would see the ENTP of failing to catch the personal touch or nuance of a given situation... the ENTP would see the ENFP as failing to properly consider the logical nuance of a given situation. 

The ENTP didn't 'feel it through' enough. 
The ENFP didn't 'think it through' enough.

....

Be vary wary of operating in these dichotomies. If you limit yourself to a False Dichotomy, you can simply choose the one that best applies, using the Forer Effect or Confirmation Bias, and appraise yourself thus, while another option entirely is more correct.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

One can think big picture and get all emotional about it. (ENFP)
The other can think big picture and keep calm and detached. (ENTP)
The opposite is true on the micro scale of their moment to moment sensations.
Then it is the ENTP who gets all stirred up and the ENFP who keeps themself detached.


----------



## Bobagsp (Apr 23, 2014)

Hi there, I too had trouble deciding between two types, INTJ and INFJ. Take it from me, you will always find things in common with both types, but these are often broad generalizations. I know you say that you don't have time, but it is crucial that you learn the functions to truly know what type you are. The good thing is that to decide between these two, you only need to know if you have introverted Thinking (Ti, the function of the ENTP) or introverted Feeling (Fi, the function of ENFP). A quick Google search can get you the answers that you need, some of the articles are really short, so take it from somebody who's gone through it before, learn the functions, even if it's little by little, it'll be a massive help.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

consciousness said:


> k
> 
> My immediate impression was Se dominant (ESxP). With the arrogance and the practicality and the disinterest in theory. These things are of little importance though, you have to take the time to understand the theory if you want to know your type.
> 
> ...and now I see the sig. Glorified types upon glorified types. I'm not saying you've picked those types because they're cool, but yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.



if there is one letter I am most sure about, it is N over S. My father is deeply S (ESTJ) and this has been whom I've learned to be practical from. I freaking love theories (if you've seen any of my prior posts, you would understand), and I dismiss rules, and pretty much any typical way of doing things. I am, with absolutely no doubt (rare for me to be doubtless), an N. 

I am not disinterested in the theory, that's why I am inquiring about it. But I appreciate an ENTP trying to judge someone on little to know prior knowledge based off a short OP; very nice. Yes, I take S to offense when I probably should not; I live in my head and never know where I am. Directions and I do not pair well.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

hornet said:


> One can think big picture and get all emotional about it. (ENFP)
> The other can think big picture and keep calm and detached. (ENTP)
> The opposite is true on the micro scale of their moment to moment sensations.
> Then it is the ENTP who gets all stirred up and the ENFP who keeps themself detached.


Based on this, I would definitely be ENTP.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

arkigos said:


> In the context of Myers Briggs, which I assume the location of this inquiry is meant to emphasize.... I'd say take the test, read the descriptions, and select the best fit. MBTI assessment successfully accomplished.
> 
> If you want to discuss it in the context of cognitive functions, aka, NeFi vs NeTi, then that is a different story.
> 
> ...



I am definitely a thinker. That response is not out of desire to be one who thinks, but out of complete careful observation of my life and concluding that I am one who thinks way too much and too deeply. I hear "you're too critical. you think too much. " - blah, blah. 

The reason I am on a toss on the T/F is for a few reasons. 

1. I tend to come up ENFP more than ENTP (but I understand tests aren't completely accurate)
2. It is said that N vs T is how you make your decisions. I have had problems in the past of thinking things through to its deepest core, but then ultimately *deciding* with my gut because I saw both sides so well that I could not come to a complete conclusion. When I drink, my T flys out the window and I start to go with the flow. Hince, why I love drinking -- only time my mind isn't racing. 
3. ENTP's are supposed to be lackadaisical dressers, very sloppy, and bullshitters who do not finish projects. I dress very well, when my rooms gets messy..I clean that shit up. I do have major problems with not finishing things (something I've worked vigorously to grow out of when my GPA started looking like utter shit). However, now I am basically taking over my business school and have things lined up for me very well. Maybe that's my 8w7, but this is what leads me to think F. I feel for people, I care for people, and I am oddly romantic. 

So yeah, I guess I am ENTP, but oh well.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

laterally38 said:


> Based on this, I would definitely be ENTP.


Yeah once you drag in Socionics ideas, 
such petty things like am I ENFP (Delta) or ENTP (Alpha) gets resolved quickly.
Your quadra defines you so much it is a joke.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

laterally38 said:


> I am definitely a thinker. That response is not out of desire to be one who thinks, but out of complete careful observation of my life and concluding that I am one who thinks way too much and too deeply. I hear "you're too critical. you think too much. " - blah, blah.
> 
> The reason I am on a toss on the T/F is for a few reasons.
> 
> ...


I don't and really never have thought you were an Ne. Certainly not a dominant one. You may be very interested in theories and abstract stuff, and have a racing mind for those things.. but it isn't Ne. You constantly come across as an Se who is conflating Ti for N. So spaketh Jung:


* *






> The Introverted Thinking Type
> Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counterexample of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.The introverted thinking type is characterized by a priority of the thinking I have just described. Like his extraverted parallel, he is decisively influenced by ideas; these, however, have their origin, not in the objective data but in the subjective foundation. Like the extravert, he too will follow his ideas, but in the reverse direction: inwardly not outwardly. Intensity is his aim, not extensity. In these fundamental characters he differs markedly, indeed quite unmistakably from his extraverted parallel. Like every introverted type, he is almost completely lacking in that which distinguishes his counter type, namely, the intensive relatedness to the object. In the case of a human object, the man has a distinct feeling that he matters only in a negative way, i.e., in milder instances he is merely conscious of being superfluous, but with a more extreme type he feels himself warded off as something definitely disturbing. This negative relation to the object—indifference, and even aversion—characterizes every introvert; it also makes a description of the introverted type in general extremely difficult. With him, everything tends to disappear and get concealed. His judgment appears cold, obstinate, arbitrary, and inconsiderate, simply because he is related less to the object than the subject. One can feel nothing in it that might possibly confer a higher value upon the object; it always seems to go beyond the object, leaving behind it a flavour of a certain subjective superiority. Courtesy, amiability, and friendliness may be present, but often with a particular quality suggesting a certain uneasiness, which betrays an ulterior aim, namely, the disarming of an opponent, who must at all costs be pacified and set at ease lest he prove a disturbing-element. In no sense, of course, is he an opponent, but, if at all sensitive, he will feel somewhat repelled, perhaps even depreciated. Invariably the object has to submit to a certain neglect; in worse cases it is even surrounded with quite unnecessary measures of precaution. Thus it happens that this type tends to disappear behind a cloud of misunderstanding, which only thickens the more he attempts to assume, by way of compensation and with the help of his inferior functions, a certain mask of urbanity, which often presents a most vivid contrast to his real nature. Although in the extension of his world of ideas he shrinks from no risk, however daring, and never even considers the possibility that such a world might also be dangerous, revolutionary, heretical, and wounding to feeling, he is none the less a prey to the liveliest anxiety, should it ever chance to become objectively real. That goes against the grain. When the time comes for him to transplant his ideas into the world, his is by no means the air of an anxious mother solicitous for her children's welfare; he merely exposes them, and is often extremely annoyed when they fail to thrive on their own account. The decided lack he usually displays in practical ability, and his aversion from any sort of re[accent]clame assist in this attitude. If to his eyes his product appears subjectively correct and true, it must also be so in practice, and others have simply got to bow to its truth. Hardly ever will he go out of his way to win anyone's appreciation of it, especially if it be anyone of influence. And, when he brings himself to do so, he is usually so extremely maladroit that he merely achieves the opposite of his purpose. In his own special province, there are usually awkward experiences with his colleagues, since he never knows how to win their favour; as a rule he only succeeds in showing them how entirely superfluous they are to him. In the pursuit of his ideas he is generally stubborn, headstrong, and quite unamenable to influence. His suggestibility to personal influences is in strange contrast to this. An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness. His work goes slowly and with difficulty. Either he is taciturn or he falls among people who cannot understand him; whereupon he proceeds to gather further proof of the unfathomable stupidity of man. If he should ever chance to be understood, he is credulously liable to overestimate. Ambitious women have only to understand how advantage may be taken of his uncritical attitude towards the object to make an easy prey of him; or he may develop into a misanthropic bachelor with a childlike heart. Then, too, his outward appearance is often gauche, as if he were painfully anxious to escape observation; or he may show a remarkable unconcern, an almost childlike naivete. In his own particular field of work he provokes violent contradiction, with which he has no notion how to deal, unless by chance he is seduced by his primitive affects into biting and fruitless polemics. By his wider circle he is counted inconsiderate and domineering. But the better one knows him, the more favourable one's judgment becomes, and his nearest friends are well aware how to value his intimacy. To people who judge him from afar he appears prickly, inaccessible, haughty; frequently he may even seem soured as a result of his antisocial prejudices. He has little influence as a personal teacher, since the mentality of his pupils is strange to him. Besides, teaching has, at bottom, little interest for him, except when it accidentally provides him with a theoretical problem. He is a poor teacher, because while teaching his thought is engaged with the actual material, and will not be satisfied with its mere presentation.
> With the intensification of his type, his convictions become all the more rigid and unbending. Foreign influences are eliminated; he becomes more unsympathetic to his peripheral world, and therefore more dependent upon his intimates. His expression becomes more personal and inconsiderate and his ideas more profound, but they can no longer be adequately expressed in the material at hand. This lack is replaced by emotivity and susceptibility. The foreign influence, brusquely declined from without, reaches him from within, from the side of the unconscious, and he is obliged to collect evidence against it and against things in general which to outsiders seems quite superfluous. Through the subjectification of consciousness occasioned by his defective relationship to the object, what secretly concerns his own person now seems to him of chief importance. And he begins to confound his subjective truth with his own person. Not that he will attempt to press anyone personally with his convictions, but he will break out with venomous and personal retorts against every criticism, however just. Thus in every respect his isolation gradually increases. His originally fertilizing ideas become destructive, because poisoned by a kind of sediment of bitterness. His struggle against the influences emanating from the unconscious increases with his external isolation, until gradually this begins to cripple him. A still greater isolation must surely protect him from the unconscious influences, but as a rule this only takes him deeper into the conflict which is destroying him within.
> The thinking of the introverted type is positive and synthetic in the development of those ideas which in ever increasing measure approach the eternal validity of the primordial images. But, when their connection with objective experience begins to fade, they become mythological and untrue for the present situation. Hence this thinking holds value only for its contemporaries, just so long as it also stands in visible and understandable connection with the known facts of the time. But, when thinking becomes mythological, its irrelevancy grows until finally it gets lost in itself. The relatively unconscious functions of feeling, intuition, and sensation, which counterbalance introverted thinking, are inferior in quality and have a primitive, extraverted character, to which all the troublesome objective influences this type is subject to must be ascribed. The various measures of self-defence, the curious protective obstacles with which such people are wont to surround themselves, are sufficiently familiar, and I may, therefore, spare myself a description of them. They all serve as a defence against 'magical' influences; a vague dread of the other sex also belongs to this category.





...and an Se:


* *






> The Extraverted Sensation TypeNo other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism. His sense for objective facts is extraordinarily developed. His life is an accumulation of actual experience with concrete objects, and the more pronounced he is, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events of his life hardly deserve the name 'experience'. He knows no better use for this sensed 'experience' than to make it serve as a guide to fresh sensations; anything in the least 'new' that comes within his circle of interest is forthwith turned to a sensational account and is made to serve this end. In so far as one is disposed to regard a highly developed sense for sheer actuality as very reasonable, will such men be esteemed rational. In reality, however, this is by no means the case, since they are equally subject to the sensation of irrational, chance happenings, as they are to rational behaviour.
> Such a type—the majority arc men apparently—does not, of course, believe himself to be 'subject' to sensation. He would be much more inclined to ridicule this view as altogether inconclusive, since, from his standpoint, sensation is the concrete manifestation of life—it is simply the fulness [sic] of actual living. His aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is similarly orientated. For true enjoyment has its own special morality, its own moderation and lawfulness, its own unselfishness and devotedness. It by no means follows that he is just sensual or gross, for he may differentiate his sensation to the finest pitch of æsthetic purity without being the least unfaithful, even in his most abstract sensations, to his principle of objective sensation. Wulfen's Cicerone des r¨cksichtlosen Lebensgenusses is the unvarnished confession of a type of this sort. From this point of view the book seems to me worth reading.
> Upon the lower levels this is the man of tangible reality, with little tendency either for reflection or commanding purpose. To sense the object, to have and if possible to enjoy sensations, is his constant motive. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, he frequently has a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment; he is sometimes a jolly fellow, and often a refined æsthete.
> In the former case, the great problems of life hinge upon a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, they are questions of good taste. When he 'senses', everything essential has been said and done. Nothing can be more than concrete and actual; conjectures that transcend or go beyond the concrete are only permitted on condition that they enhance sensation. This need not be in any way a pleasurable reinforcement, since this type is not a common voluptuary; he merely desires the strongest sensation, and this, by his very nature, he can receive only from without. What comes from within seems to him morbid and objectionable. In so far as lie thinks and feels, he always reduces down to objective foundations, i.e. to influences coming from the object, quite unperturbed by the most violent departures from logic. Tangible reality, under any conditions, makes him breathe again. In this respect he is unexpectedly credulous. He will, without hesitation, relate an obvious psychogenic symptom to the falling barometer, while the existence of a psychic conflict seems to him a fantastic abnormality. His love is incontestably rooted in the manifest attractions of the object. In so far as he is normal, he is conspicuously adjusted to positive reality—conspicuously, because his adjustment is always visible. His ideal is the actual; in this respect he is considerate. He has no ideals related to ideas—he has, therefore, no sort of ground for maintaining a hostile attitude towards the reality of things and facts. This expresses itself in all the externals of his life. He dresses well, according to his circumstances ; he keeps a good table for his friends, who are either made comfortable or at least given to understand that his fastidious taste is obliged to impose certain claims upon his entourage. He even convinces one that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.
> ...







So, you see Jung handled the question of ideas and concepts in Ti. You'll need to determine, then, if not that, what Ne is. 

On your points:

1. Doesn't matter.
2. Ti struggles in this way... a conversation in its own right.
3. This sounds much more Se, or rather not Ne. The whole focus is once again on the real manifestation. That this would be a hang-up or a priority at all is a sign of concrete cognition. Very unlike and unusual for an ENTP. That may sound negative to you, but it isn't. Also, every sane person cares for people and feels for them, should that not be ripped out of them by brainwashing or abuse... or whatever. 

So, as you read Se and say 'but I am super abstract and into theories', I refer you to the description of Ti. 


----

However, from an MBTI perspective none of that matters... you are whatever you choose to prefer. Thus if you LIKE or see yourself more as an intuitive, regardless of whether or not you are one, then that is your type. 

To that end, godspeed.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

arkigos said:


> I don't and really never have thought you were an Ne. Certainly not a dominant one. You may be very interested in theories and abstract stuff, and have a racing mind for those things.. but it isn't Ne. You constantly come across as an Se who is conflating Ti for N. So spaketh Jung:
> 
> 
> * *
> ...



Well sir, I respectfully disagree. I am open to the fact that you may be correct, but I find it extremely hard to believe. I guess I'll look into things more before I keep parading around forums with half-assed, ignorant concepts. I will say this, I have read the ESTP and ESFP descriptions, and they seem much more like others that I know and not me at all. I am definitely not a "doer", I question things way too deeply on a micro and macro level. I have begun to force myself into "doing" things after coming to the conclusion that ENTP's tend to have a struggle with this game called life because of exactly that -- not actually doing things. 

I respect your opinion, as it is a more academic one on the subject at hand, but I do have much more knowledge on what is actually going on in my head and my day-to-day actions. With that being said, I'm rather certain I am an N, with a strong Ne preference, but I'll look into more. I read a long forum on ENTP development from birth until my current age of 21, and it was so on point that I almost cried. 

Over and out.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> I don't and really never have thought you were an Ne. Certainly not a dominant one. You may be very interested in theories and abstract stuff, and have a racing mind for those things.. but it isn't Ne. You constantly come across as an Se who is conflating Ti for N. So spaketh Jung:
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


 @laterally38 —

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was inclined to ignore all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was telling people they should be typing themselves based on his original descriptions in Psychological Types, I really don't think he'd approve.

Jung was a strong believer in the scientific approach, and Briggs and (especially) Myers put Jung's type categories to the test in a way that he never had. And when Myers was finished, the Myers-Briggs typology consisted of — in the words of McCrae and Costa (the leading Big Five psychologists) — "a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices."

Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together — and, as many people (McCrae and Costa included) have noted since, he loaded up both extraversion and introversion with quite a few characteristics that decades of MBTI (and Big Five) studies have firmly established _don't statistically cluster together_ in real-life people.

And among those characteristics was what arkigos has referred to as a tendency to be "super abstract and into theories." If you're talking about "abstract" in that sense (people more interested in abstract theories than concrete facts), Jung thought concrete/abstract went to the heart of the E/I divide.

For Jung, the core inner dynamic that caused introversion in the first place involved a projection of negative unconscious contents by the introvert onto the people and things of the external world, which in turn caused the introvert to falsely perceive that those people and things were charged with negative energy (libido), which in turn caused the introvert to feel threatened by those people and things, and fear them, and mount a defense which took the form of, among other things, (1) avoidance, and (2) a process of "abstraction" by which the introvert reduced people and things to their abstract qualities, thereby (as Jung saw it) "withdrawing libido from the object ... to prevent the object from gaining power over him."

In the first chapter, describing the ways in which several of the bitterest doctrinal controversies in the early Christian church reflected the E/I divide, Jung wrote that beneath those controversies "lies the great psychological schism. The one position attaches supreme value and importance to the sensuously perceptible, whose subject, though it may not always be human and personal, is nevertheless always a projected human sensation; the other maintains that the chief value lies with the abstract and extra-human, whose subject is the function; in other words, with the objective process of nature, that runs its course determined by impersonal law, beyond human sensation, of which it is the actual foundation."

"The man who is oriented to the idea [— i.e., the introvert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea," Jung explained. "But the man who is oriented to the object [— i.e., the extravert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of sensation. For him the abstract is of secondary importance, since what must be thought about things seems to him relatively inessential, while for the former it is just the reverse."

And the same abstract/concrete dichotomy is _also_ reflected in Jung's conceptions of the introverted and extraverted forms of each function, with the introverted form being oriented toward the inner world of abstract ideas, values, etc. and the extraverted form being oriented toward the physical world. For example: As further discussed in this post, Jung described a Te-dom's thinking as "concretistic," and hence overly tied down by the "facts" and "objective data" at the expense of abstract "interpretation" of the facts. And conversely, and as further described in this post, Jung described Ti-doms as being highly abstract thinkers who, as a result, were prone to be overly dismissive of the facts.

And... we now know that Jung was wrong to associate introversion and an abstract orientation, on the one hand, and extraversion and a concrete orientation, on the other hand. There are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and _no significant statistical correlation at all_ between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N.

So you're correct to believe that, if you have a strong preference for the world of theories and the abstract (as compared to the world of physical facts), that's a solid indicator of an MBTI N preference. What's more, virtually all the leading MBTI theorists are in agreement on that — including the ones whose approach is more function-centric than dichotomy-centric. For example:


Lenore Thomson notes that "Sensation gives us an appreciation for objective facts and circumstances, as perceived by the senses, [and] excellent powers of observation," while "Intuition gives us an appreciation for the larger picture or underlying pattern, beyond the reach of the senses," with the result that N's tend to be uninterested in "facts and details."
Linda Berens explains that sensing "is a process of becoming aware of sensory information and often involves responding to that sensory information without any judgment or evaluation of it. ... In the Sensing process, the focus is on the actual experience, the facts and the data," while intuition "is a process of becoming aware of abstract information, like symbols, conceptual patterns, and meanings."
Berens and Nardi associate S with "tangible information" and N with "conceptual information" and specifically associate Ne with "Interpreting situations and relationships" and "becoming aware of patterns, implications and meanings," and Ni with "current perceptions sparking insights into complex situations," "becoming aware of universal meanings and symbols" and "noticing whole patterns or systems."

So arkigos can make as many posts as he likes suggesting that people ought to pretty much stick to Jung's original conceptions and/or that abstract/concrete has little to do with N/S and/or that the MBTI, rather than being an advance beyond Jung, is basically a separate system that's sufficiently silly that, heck, if you're going to go with the MBTI, you can just call yourself whatever you like — but, FYI, not only doesn't arkigos have any respectable company among modern MBTI theorists, but I'm pretty sure Jung wouldn't approve either.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

arkigos said:


> I don't and really never have thought you were an Ne. Certainly not a dominant one. You may be very interested in theories and abstract stuff, and have a racing mind for those things.. but it isn't Ne. You constantly come across as an Se who is conflating Ti for N. So spaketh Jung:
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


Honestly though, you have to know yourself. INTP's tend to be very arrogant about their views they provoke to the world and discuss towards other. It is like an INTP to want others not to have that sought after N. I just wanted to tell you, sir, that you are 100% wrong. I'm sure you're sitting there feeling more certain that I am "s" after reading this, but it is just wrong. I do not have a wide circle of friends, I am not the life of the party. I can be the life of the party, when I let loose enough and decide to stop observing and sometimes being a bit odd. I know a million people, they all think I have a huge social life. Couldn't be further from the truth, I'm just very deceitful about it. People go months without seeing me, and they think it's because I'm doing other things with other people. No, I probably had a thought-provoked breakdown where I started doubting all of my abilities and shut down. Sorry for the aggressiveness, really, I just take the S to offense. My sister = s. My mom= s. My dad= s. My brother= s. I= n. And that little difference is wildly apparent.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@_Raawx_

You know yourself better than anyone else. Go with that.

You were being tongue-in-cheek, weren't you?


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> @_laterally38_ —
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Please cite and, if you don't mind, bold the portion of my posts where I have so stated. Thanks.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@laterally38

Where is this info on ENTP development? I'd be interested in giving it a read. Can you post the link?


----------



## Tranquility (Dec 16, 2013)

@reckful @arkigos

Actually, in your disputes, I'm seeing a very interesting example of what two people who value abstraction over objective concretism act like when their personal convictions misalign…


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> @laterally38
> 
> Where is this info on ENTP development? I'd be interested in giving it a read. Can you post the link?


Yes, sir. 

http://personalitycafe.com/entp-articles/14767-development-entp-children.html


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> @laterally38
> 
> Where is this info on ENTP development? I'd be interested in giving it a read. Can you post the link?



I'm sure there isn't a connection (not actually sure hince the inquiring but couldn't think of a better phrasing), but I could count to infinity at 4. I remember sitting in a room getting interviewed by a teacher for pre-school and I had heard the highest a kid could count was 100. I lied and said 100 because I didn't want to appear out of the ordinary, but I could've counted until you couldn't count anymore. (honestly, not past a quadrillion, but you get the point). I grew up with a very special relationship with numbers, but I grew out of "math" when I had to start actually learning the equations. 

I'm inquiring if you or any other ENTP's were like this.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> reckful said:
> 
> 
> > So arkigos can make as many posts as he likes suggesting that people ought to pretty much stick to Jung's original conceptions and/or that abstract/concrete has little to do with N/S and/or that the MBTI, rather than being an advance beyond Jung, is basically a separate system that's sufficiently silly that, heck, if you're going to go with the MBTI, you can just call yourself whatever you like — but, FYI, not only doesn't arkigos have any respectable company among modern MBTI theorists, but I'm pretty sure Jung wouldn't approve either.
> ...


You're welcome.



arkigos said:


> *I don't and really never have thought you were an Ne.* Certainly not a dominant one. You may be very interested in theories and abstract stuff, and have a racing mind for those things.. but it isn't Ne. *You constantly come across as an Se who is conflating Ti for N. So spaketh Jung:*
> 
> [_Jung Ti description omitted_]
> 
> ...


That's your latest post. A couple days ago, after I pointed another poster to a post of mine that I said offered what I considered "some clarification on N and S" (and that included quotes on S/N from Myers, Kiersey, Thomson, Berens and Nardi), you objected that the quoted views of all those theorists in my post didn't even qualify as "attempts to actually clarify N and S" because, as far as you were concerned, those people all "essentially reject Jung," and their notions of N and S are "completely outside of Jung." And it's worth emphasizing that the OP of that thread hadn't specifically asked for anybody's input to be limited to _Jung's_ views on the functions. Here's what you said:



arkigos said:


> Only the spoiler at the end of that post attempts to actually clarify N and S, and only the first sentence of that engages it directly at all. The second sentence jumps right into Myers, by moving away from a theory of cognition, but one of preference (as in, 'that which you personally choose to be more desirable'). We are now, of course, completely outside of Jung. ...
> 
> The rest of the clarification are quotations of people who all essentially reject Jung and supplant it with their own systems, which are specifically contradictory to it (and in many ways each other)... and on more wildly more profound levels than just aux/tert function ordering. ...


Continuing on the issue of whether you think "abstract/concrete has little to do with N/S" (as I put it): In that same thread, later that same day, you added that those quotes I'd posted about N/S and abstract/concrete were all "specious" and you rejected that "dichotomy" and thought the association of N/S with abstract/concrete was neither "meaningful" nor "insightful." And you also told me not to tell you I was "abstract," explaining that, from your perspective, I'm "a model of concreteness."

Here's some of that post:



arkigos said:


> The fact is that MBTI and Jung are not competing interpretations, but different theories altogether. Myers may indeed type you, for example, an INTJ, but what is the use of that when it speaks nothing whatsoever of your cognition. It puts you and I in a category together? Nonsense. I am an abstract thinker and an Intuitive (in a Jungian sense). You appear to be neither. You show no abstraction in thinking, and show no glimmer of what Jung would call Intuition. You seem to be openly antagonistic to both. Convenient, then, that you adhere to those that would so superficially and heuristically define them.
> ...
> If I fail to agree with these specious definitions [of S/N from Myers, Thomson, Berens, etc.], then I must believe in some erratic or absurd opposite of them. No. I reject the dichotomy. I instead agree with what these definitions speciously attempt to convey. ... Now, on 'concrete' vs 'abstract'... in terms of our current idiomatic meaning of the words... you will quickly see this fail with many ISxPs especially. They simply will not identify with it. No more than ESFP would see themselves as 'detail' oriented. If they purport to be accurate descriptions, they will certainly fail as meaningful descriptors. So, yes, I disagree with them.
> 
> These definitions fall apart because they are not meaningful or insightful. Please don't tell me, for example, that you consider yourself 'abstract'. From my perspective, you are a model of concreteness.


And @laterally38 might be interested to know that that thread was yet another thread where you were doing your best to browbeat a PerC member who'd expressed no doubt about being an N into thinking they were an S, which — let's face it — has long been one of your favorite PerC pastimes. :tongue:


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

laterally38 said:


> Honestly though, you have to know yourself. INTP's tend to be very arrogant about their views they provoke to the world and discuss towards other. It is like an INTP to want others not to have that sought after N. I just wanted to tell you, sir, that you are 100% wrong. I'm sure you're sitting there feeling more certain that I am "s" after reading this, but it is just wrong. I do not have a wide circle of friends, I am not the life of the party. I can be the life of the party, when I let loose enough and decide to stop observing and sometimes being a bit odd. I know a million people, they all think I have a huge social life. Couldn't be further from the truth, I'm just very deceitful about it. People go months without seeing me, and they think it's because I'm doing other things with other people. No, I probably had a thought-provoked breakdown where I started doubting all of my abilities and shut down. Sorry for the aggressiveness, really, I just take the S to offense. My sister = s. My mom= s. My dad= s. My brother= s. I= n. And that little difference is wildly apparent.


I am not certain that this is indicative of an N vs S dichotomy. You feel different, disconnected? Being an N helps with that, helps explain it, put it into context. I understand. By no means do I wish to take that from you, or, worse, undermine that without cause. The last thing I'd want to do is cause harm... especially if in doing so I am also entirely wrong. 

I've offered my opinion, but it is just one person's opinion. I made my case and I'd encourage you to take it with a grain of salt. These forums are so terrible for communication on a more personal level. I don't share your antagonism(?) with the idea of being Sensory, and I do often forget that there are certain 'implications' involved in being called a Sensory, at least in this community, that tend to provoke some hostility. I tend to have a more positive view of S types, all things considered, than I do of N types. Right or wrong, I have just had better interactions. Not sure what that means, or how it affects me, but there you go.

I am not really terribly concerned with what your type is, especially in the Ne vs Se dichotomy, but since it was mentioned.. I just sort of off-handedly figured I'd chime in... on the off-chance it would be helpful. If it wasn't, then please feel free to ignore it. 



EthereaEthos said:


> @_reckful_ @_arkigos_
> 
> Actually, in your disputes, I'm seeing a very interesting example of what two people who value abstraction over objective concretism act like when their personal convictions misalign…


Haha! Yeah, not my finest hour... the nature of the personality aspect of our conflict is interesting to me. I don't think I would attribute it quite that way, however. Notably, I am not certain I have ever (with perhaps one exception not related to this forum) been in another such conflict. Certainly not with NPs, for example. I have my theories about it, of course, but they are just that.

@_reckful_ - All true. That does not amount to a conclusion that I think we should stick to Jung as a principle in and of itself. I think Jung is better than those things, not that Jung is the final say. Oh, certainly not. There are indeed corrections and additions to Jung that I think are just fabulous.

Also, what is with the personal attacks? 
@laterally38 - Did my post come across as 'browbeating' to you? I am genuinely curious... if so, I am very eager to know.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

laterally38 said:


> I'm sure there isn't a connection (not actually sure hence the inquiring but couldn't think of a better phrasing), but I could count to infinity at 4. I remember sitting in a room getting interviewed by a teacher for pre-school and I had heard the highest a kid could count was 100. I lied and said 100 because I didn't want to appear out of the ordinary, but I could've counted until you couldn't count anymore. (honestly, not past a quadrillion, but you get the point). I grew up with a very special relationship with numbers, but I grew out of "math" when I had to start actually learning the equations.
> 
> I'm inquiring if you or any other ENTP's were like this.


I never applied myself to counting, but I'm sure if I had, I would have had no problem doing it. I was very good with letters and words at a young age.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

arkigos said:


> I am not certain that this is indicative of an N vs S dichotomy. You feel different, disconnected? Being an N helps with that, helps explain it, put it into context. I understand. By no means do I wish to take that from you, or, worse, undermine that without cause. The last thing I'd want to do is cause harm... especially if in doing so I am also entirely wrong.
> 
> I've offered my opinion, but it is just one person's opinion. I made my case and I'd encourage you to take it with a grain of salt. These forums are so terrible for communication on a more personal level. I don't share your antagonism(?) with the idea of being Sensory, and I do often forget that there are certain 'implications' involved in being called a Sensory, at least in this community, that tend to provoke some hostility. I tend to have a more positive view of S types, all things considered, than I do of N types. Right or wrong, I have just had better interactions. Not sure what that means, or how it affects me, but there you go.
> 
> ...


I am envious of "s" types but I , to my core, do not have a more positive view on them. I cannot help but find them less intelligent (which I understand could be a million year conversation in itself--levels of intelligence). A lot of "s" types do better in life than "n" types but "n" types tend to have much more in-depth conversations. 

I am the guy who people know as "likes to drink, think, and talk deeply". I just so happen to be an athlete who can get women and have a desire for adventure. However, I do not relate well with most athletes, and have hung around almost all hipsters and hippies in college. I am known as the "frat" guy of the group due to nothing but the way I dress and the fact I am succeeding on a non-artistic level (the plan is screen-plays, but that's another story). At this point, I'm all over the place and have made 0 sense so I'm just gonna stop here and respect that you've been over this conversation for quite some time. I respect your humility -- I tend to lack it.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)




----------



## dinkytown (Dec 28, 2013)

laterally38 said:


> I am envious of "s" types but I , to my core, do not have a more positive view on them. I cannot help but find them less intelligent (which I understand could be a million year conversation in itself--levels of intelligence). A lot of "s" types do better in life than "n" types but "n" types tend to have much more in-depth conversations.
> 
> I am the guy who people know as "likes to drink, think, and talk deeply". I just so happen to be an athlete who can get women and have a desire for adventure. However, I do not relate well with most athletes, and have hung around almost all hipsters and hippies in college. I am known as the "frat" guy of the group due to nothing but the way I dress and the fact I am succeeding on a non-artistic level (the plan is screen-plays, but that's another story). At this point, I'm all over the place and have made 0 sense so I'm just gonna stop here and respect that you've been over this conversation for quite some time. I respect your humility -- I tend to lack it.


You know what all them 's' types are thinking? Damn, I'm jealous of @laterally38 and all those others who are so normal and fit in so well. It would be nice to be all naive and content like them. It sucks that I'm so different and unique and misunderstood. Why can't I be normal?

You see, everyone thinks they're special. Everyone thinks they have a wierd piece of intelligence that no one else has. Everyone wonders why they can't fit in quite as well as those other people they know. It's therefore no wonder that, upon discovering mbti, everyone seems to think they're an 'n'. 

This misnomer that everyone who doesn't quite fit into society is an 'n' needs to go away. 

Also,
if you think "s" means you're jockish, in the mainstream, and 'n' means hipster and counterculture, well I'm sorry. I can't help you there.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

laterally38 said:


> I am envious of "s" types but I , to my core, do not have a more positive view on them. I cannot help but find them less intelligent (which I understand could be a million year conversation in itself--levels of intelligence). A lot of "s" types do better in life than "n" types but "n" types tend to have much more in-depth conversations.
> 
> I am the guy who people know as "likes to drink, think, and talk deeply". I just so happen to be an athlete who can get women and have a desire for adventure. However, I do not relate well with most athletes, and have hung around almost all hipsters and hippies in college. I am known as the "frat" guy of the group due to nothing but the way I dress and the fact I am succeeding on a non-artistic level (the plan is screen-plays, but that's another story). At this point, I'm all over the place and have made 0 sense so I'm just gonna stop here and respect that you've been over this conversation for quite some time. I respect your humility -- I tend to lack it.


Inasmuch as that is your view of Se, then I certainly understand your aversion to it. In that case, it is a difference of definition. That is really a troublesome thing because we hear one another in our own definitions, you know? I say S and you hear one thing but I said something else... it is a peculiar thing.

When I say you are an S, I associate that very positively... with some of my closest and most respected friends. You have other associations, and I am not sure how much those play a part for either of us. 

So, either the definitions change... or, given your definitions, you have your answer. Nevertheless, what you understand about yourself and your truer nature and that which energizes you and you see as meaningful is undoubtedly true. Is that answered by 'N'? I guess that is the question. If you see it so, then by all means. My urging it to question everything, including that, but that is why we are here. You take my view with all the others, and come to your own idea of things.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

blues street news said:


> You know what all them 's' types are thinking? Damn, I'm jealous of @laterally38 and all those others who are so normal and fit in so well. It would be nice to be all naive and content like them. It sucks that I'm so different and unique and misunderstood. Why can't I be normal?
> 
> You see, everyone thinks they're special. Everyone thinks they have a wierd piece of intelligence that no one else has. Everyone wonders why they can't fit in quite as well as those other people they know. It's therefore no wonder that, upon discovering mbti, everyone seems to think they're an 'n'.
> 
> ...


Haha ohhh no, most of the "hispters" that I know come off much more S type --living in the moment. However, this does not pertain to all of them. It depends on the pairing and in-turn to it's functions. S definitely does have a more likelihood of "jockish" but I know plenty of "s"'s that hate sports. "N" would lead to a more likelihood of thinking for ones self in comparison to the rest of society, but that does not always mean they don't play along or even agree with it. I did not mean to throw people into one bubble, I apologize if I came off that way.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Update:

I most certainly have NeJi. So, I'm in this honors seminar. I've worked on this project all semester, and I've finally gotten about 14 pages. I wasn't quite satisfied with my work. It felt all too...airy. Too few quotes, too much speculation. I just didn't really have any of the concrete and solid writing that I was hoping for. Knowing that my seminar teacher is amazing at refining and narrowing the aims of our projects, I thought I would go to him for help. Boy did I get schooled.

Essentially, my entire essay was garbage as it had been flawed from the start. None of my writing referenced anything external. In the seminar, he places a heavy emphasis on understanding the "they say" before you get to the "I say". My entire essay was "I say", which I think is Ji working it's magic. 

My essay was this quilted (Ne) anecdotal (Ji) blanket (Je), and that's not what I needed. It was imprecise, unfocused and just not research--garbage. All the while, I couldn't help but laugh at how this was all indicative of how Ne dom's might write their essay. For me, Ne-Te powered by Fi manifested itself in a polemical piece-meal essay. Tertiary Te was manifested in my assumptions. It just was all...so bad. I thought I was going to die. But this is how I know I learn; fuck up badly and improve for the future.

Does this...make any sense?


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> @laterally38 - Did my post come across as 'browbeating' to you? I am genuinely curious... if so, I am very eager to know.


Just as a reminder, laterally38 started this thread to ask about ENTP/ENFP differences, and told us "if there is one letter I am most sure about, it is N over S." You then hit him with a post where you reverently quoted Jung ("So spaketh Jung") and somewhat condescendingly told him that his choice was basically either (1) to recognize that, under a proper view of what type was about, he was "an Se who is conflating Ti for N" (which is how you said he "constantly came across") or (2) to reject Jung in favor of "the MBTI," in which case, pfffft, he could just call himself whatever he liked and, "regardless of whether you are one, that is your type"...

In response to that, laterally38 had this to say, and I'd say there's no doubt which INTP he was referring to...



laterally38 said:


> INTP's tend to be very arrogant about their views they provoke to the world and discuss towards other. It is like an INTP to want others not to have that sought after N. I just wanted to tell you, sir, that you are 100% wrong. I'm sure you're sitting there feeling more certain that I am "s" after reading this, but it is just wrong.


So, regardless of how your target may choose to respond (if he does) to your question, I think I can be excused for getting the impression that you might have left him feeling a tad browbeaten. :tongue:


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

reckful said:


> Just as a reminder, laterally38 started this thread to ask about ENTP/ENFP differences, and told us "if there is one letter I am most sure about, it is N over S." You then hit him with a post where you reverently quoted Jung ("So spaketh Jung") and somewhat condescendingly told him that his choice was basically either (1) to recognize that, under a proper view of what type was about, he was "an Se who is conflating Ti for N" (which is how you said he "constantly came across") or (2) to reject Jung in favor of "the MBTI," in which case, pfffft, he could just call himself whatever he liked and, "regardless of whether you are one, that is your type"...
> 
> In response to that, laterally38 had this to say, and I'd say there's no doubt which INTP he was referring to...
> 
> ...



........hahahaha


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

consciousness said:


> k
> 
> My immediate impression was Se dominant (ESxP). With the arrogance and the practicality and the disinterest in theory. These things are of little importance though, you have to take the time to understand the theory if you want to know your type.
> 
> ...and now I see the sig. Glorified types upon glorified types. I'm not saying you've picked those types because they're cool, but yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.



I think there may be confusion when I said "important things that I am not bullshitting". 

Look here from OP:

"....sorry I am a bit too lazy but honestly too busy to look into it. Yes, important things that I am not bullshitting."

I was playing off of the "too busy" -- "important things that I am not bullshitting"

Rather than playing off of the functions being important.

So, I was confused why I was mistaken as someone who disinterested in theory. 

MAIN: I was making a point that, although I am ENTP, I've used my self-awareness to try to work away from my "bullshitting ways" and actually accomplish the things I'm capable of. 

Hopefully this makes sense.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

After reading through this post I'm going with ETJ and one that hasn't learned the value of humility. 

I actually agree with @arkigos that you might be a sensor but you seem really reluctant to accept that so I'll go with ENTJ. ENTP is possible though but you seem very unlike most correctly typed ENTPs.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

MNiS said:


> After reading through this post I'm going with ETJ and one that hasn't learned the value of humility.
> 
> I actually agree with @arkigos that you might be a sensor but you seem really reluctant to accept that so I'll go with ENTJ. ENTP is possible though but you seem very unlike most correctly typed ENTPs.



Would you like a run-down of my life for an understanding of my ENTP typed reasoning?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

laterally38 said:


> Would you like a run-down of my life for an understanding of my ENTP typed reasoning?


Sure.


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

laterally38 said:


> I think there may be confusion when I said "important things that I am not bullshitting".
> 
> Look here from OP:
> 
> ...


My perception of your disinterest in theory stems from your reluctance to spend time to gain a deeper understanding of a theory that you claim has an identified and specific application.

And no, it didn't make sense. But don't fret, that very well could be more my problem than yours. There seems to be a block in communication between us. Good luck.


----------



## chimeric (Oct 15, 2011)

Dunno why people are being so weird. You sound ENTP enough to me. 

For a cursory understanding of how functions play into type, check out the profiles on personalityjunkie.com

Almost hesitant to refer you there because the author has a pretty clear anti-sensor bias. But other than that, the information is good and clearly/succinctly laid out.

ENTP Personality Type Profile


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

reckful said:


> Just as a reminder, laterally38 started this thread to ask about ENTP/ENFP differences, and told us "if there is one letter I am most sure about, it is N over S." You then hit him with a post where you reverently quoted Jung ("So spaketh Jung") and somewhat condescendingly told him that his choice was basically either (1) to recognize that, under a proper view of what type was about, he was "an Se who is conflating Ti for N" (which is how you said he "constantly came across") or (2) to reject Jung in favor of "the MBTI," in which case, pfffft, he could just call himself whatever he liked and, "regardless of whether you are one, that is your type"...
> 
> In response to that, laterally38 had this to say, and I'd say there's no doubt which INTP he was referring to...
> 
> ...


This is so tedious, reckful. Endlessly tedious to field every weird assumption and negative angle to everything I say on any post you take issue with. Your paraphrasing of me is about as fair and balanced as Fox News. If you want to twist my intention and meaning and put words, I suppose you are simply speaking from your perception, which I perceive as biased. Inasmuch as it serves as a reminder to show a little more emotional intelligence in my posts, I thank you. 

@_laterally38_ - Everything I said was personal observation, and subjective one at that. I hope that is obvious, but if it isn't, I implore you to understand it is nevertheless just that. Are we cool?


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

b


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

arkigos said:


> This is so tedious, reckful. Endlessly tedious to field every weird assumption and negative angle to everything I say on any post you take issue with. Your paraphrasing of me is about as fair and balanced as Fox News. If you want to twist my intention and meaning and put words, I suppose you are simply speaking from your perception, which I perceive as biased. Inasmuch as it serves as a reminder to show a little more emotional intelligence in my posts, I thank you.
> 
> @_laterally38_ - Everything I said was personal observation, and subjective one at that. I hope that is obvious, but if it isn't, I implore you to understand it is nevertheless just that. Are we cool?


I was laughing at his breakdown...it was spot on but harsh. The INTP that I know well truly means no harm, but his personality provokes the opposite. I can't generalize you with the one INTP that I know, but I truly did not feel you had malicious intent; I was offended but that's my problem.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

arkigos said:


> This is so tedious, reckful.


It's nice that we can agree on something every once in a while.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

chimeric said:


> Dunno why people are being so weird. You sound ENTP enough to me.
> 
> For a cursory understanding of how functions play into type, check out the profiles on personalityjunkie.com
> 
> ...


Hahaha thanks dawg


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

ENFP - ideas involve people and need them to work. (Let's start a book club!)
ENTP - they involve things and need them to work. (I should build a boat!)

A little oversimplified, but I find it a nice short guide.


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

laterally38 said:


> I may provoke a different type through text on a stupid social media website. Meet me in person...see my life...I'm so much closer to Robert Downey Jr than i am a fucking ESTJ or ESTP. I am not the typical CEO..that's for damn sure.
> 
> But thanks for trying


Robert Downey Jr... The King of Se dominants.

...and wondering where you got the idea that RDJ was Ne dominant I took a quick trip over to Celebrity Types. Of course they type RDJ as ENTP. Another brilliant appraisal by the brilliant minds at Celebrity Types.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

consciousness said:


> Robert Downey Jr... The King of Se dominants.


I meant his Iron Man character. I do not know a thing about RD Jr's personal life outside of cocaine. 

If that is still Se dom...I'm shocked


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

consciousness said:


> Robert Downey Jr... The King of Se dominants.
> 
> ...and wondering where you got the idea that RDJ was Ne dominant I took a quick trip over to Celebrity Types. Of course they type RDJ as ENTP. Another brilliant appraisal by the brilliant minds at Celebrity Types.


You're a keeper. *puts you into the mini-zoo in my backpack*

:kitteh:

@laterally38, I have a question for you: How are you about your surroundings? How important is it for you to have them maintained? Do you have any pet-peeves? Are you very anal with certain things? 

Did I say _question_?


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

Raawx said:


> You're a keeper. *puts you into the mini-zoo in my backpack*


*Escapes and kills you. Let that be a lesson to the rest of you...


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

consciousness said:


> *Escapes and kills you. Let that be a lesson to the rest of you...


Is it just me or do us Ne doms tend to have pretty shitty Post/Thank ratios. You, me, @Aha...

Or maybe it's ENTPs. omg. who knows.

Also, don't kill. There was no reason to do so. :sad:


----------



## pretense (Jan 2, 2013)

Raawx said:


> Is it just me or do us Ne doms tend to have pretty shitty Post/Thank ratios. You, me, @_Aha_...
> 
> Or maybe it's ENTPs. omg. who knows.
> 
> Also, don't kill. There was no reason to do so. :sad:


shut up. dead people can't talk.

All the low thank to post ratio ENTPs should have a thank circle jerk to get are ratios up.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

laterally38 said:


> I find this very intriguing because the two I was most certain of were N and P.
> 
> 1. I have a very difficult time making decisions.
> 2. I see both sides of almost everything.
> ...


It's slightly humorous how irrelevant so many of these things are when attempting to distinguish your type. I'm not throwing any suggestions because they're unnecessary nor that you =/= Ne user, but many of these things are largely irrelevant when attempting to distinguish between Se and Ne, largely stereotypical as well. I don't believe it is getting to the core differences. 

Thinking "why/how" rather than "final product" can often be far more insightful with differentiating. Because while X may result in Y behavior/traits, Z may result in Y behavior/traits as well.

I don't believe this is meant to be such a simplistic thing. Such a simplistic and outwardly concrete fitting model wouldn't be able to encompass 7 billion people.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

O_o said:


> I don't believe this is meant to be such a simplistic thing. Such a simplistic and outwardly concrete fitting model wouldn't be able to encompass 7 billion people.


qft. (is that still a thing?) I actually think this all of the time.

@consciousness


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

Raawx said:


> You're a keeper. *puts you into the mini-zoo in my backpack*
> 
> :kitteh:
> 
> ...


Surroundings: I only pat attention to people and my thoughts -- seriously. I do not know how to get anywhere, and if I do it is based on working my way through my head with visions like an aerial map, without knowing most street names (I live in a city). Lately I have been trying to use my "senses". Just last week I had all these weird realizations. For instance, I was sitting in the main dining hall I have ate at for 3 years and started looking around. I was blown away by all the things I had never noticed -- un-freaking-believable. However, I do know where every pretty girl is and once I spot the one I like best...I cannot stop thinking about it. When I am walking through campus, I have to force myself not to look at every person that walks by as I think of who they are (sum them up). 

Maintained- Not important at all-- more important that it isn't maintained. I basically wish I could meet a new group of people everyday, in a new place. I do, however, like to go back to my humble abode to become the disgusting human being I am and recover. Then, out we go again.

Pet-peeves- Although I have been doing so much typing on here that I haven't been double checking myself, I cannot stand incorrect "there" and "your". People who say "i know" to overcompensate for the fact that they don't. Professors that watch me take tests. I have a pet peeve for cheating off people. If I am cheating, I made a cheat sheet. I'm sure there is more but yeah.

Anal (hehe): I cannot stand people who are unaware of their body language and social cues. Other than that, I do not feel I am overly anal.


----------



## laterally38 (Feb 25, 2014)

O_o said:


> It's slightly humorous how irrelevant so many of these things are when attempting to distinguish your type. I'm not throwing any suggestions because they're unnecessary nor that you =/= Ne user, but many of these things are largely irrelevant when attempting to distinguish between Se and Ne, largely stereotypical as well. I don't believe it is getting to the core differences.
> 
> Thinking "why/how" rather than "final product" can often be far more insightful with differentiating. Because while X may result in Y behavior/traits, Z may result in Y behavior/traits as well.
> 
> I don't believe this is meant to be such a simplistic thing. Such a simplistic and outwardly concrete fitting model wouldn't be able to encompass 7 billion people.


Probably because I have made connections with each thing I stated with respect to myers-briggs, but I would have a hard time explaining why or how. It's all relevant, just not immediately.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

laterally38 said:


> Surroundings: I only pat attention to people and my thoughts -- seriously. I do not know how to get anywhere, and if I do it is based on working my way through my head with visions like an aerial map, without knowing most street names (I live in a city). Lately I have been trying to use my "senses". Just last week I had all these weird realizations. For instance, I was sitting in the main dining hall I have ate at for 3 years and started looking around. I was blown away by all the things I had never noticed -- un-freaking-believable. However, I do know where every pretty girl is and once I spot the one I like best...I cannot stop thinking about it. When I am walking through campus, I have to force myself not to look at every person that walks by as I think of who they are (sum them up).
> 
> Maintained- Not important at all-- more important that it isn't maintained. I basically wish I could meet a new group of people everyday, in a new place. I do, however, like to go back to my humble abode to become the disgusting human being I am and recover. Then, out we go again.
> 
> ...


Hmm. Nothing indicative, so far. I think I mis-worded the question. Let me try again: Do you have a strange attachment to certain physical sensations? As in, do certain physical objects hold some strange power over you?


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

laterally38 said:


> Probably because I have made connections with each thing I stated with respect to myers-briggs, but I would have a hard time explaining why or how. It's all relevant, just not immediately.


Ah, that's probably why. 
Don't mind me then, because I don't view Myers-briggs as relevant. 
If I did, then I could easily paste a large INTJ sticker on my profile lol. 
Anyways, yup. .....






This is probably a good time to past this.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

O_o said:


> It's slightly humorous how irrelevant so many of these things are when attempting to distinguish your type.


Actually, I'd say most of the things in his list could potentially be relevant to someone's type.

Are you one of those people who thinks that Jungian-based type only involves a relatively narrow range of personality-related phenomena? Because, as further explained in this post, that sure as heck wasn't Jung's perspective. Or Myers's, or Thomson's, or Berens's or Nardi's.

Who's your theorist of choice?

---------------------------------------

As a side question, while I've got your attention: Is there some reason you go out of your way to style your posts using a font that's substantially harder to read (not to mention significantly smaller) than the forum default? Is it that you think you know better than all those silly website designers who typically choose fonts that have proven to be the most readable on the average user's screen? Or is it more of a desire to have your posts have their own special-snowflakey look?

Whatever the reason, by the way, it's possible it might be relevant to your type. :tongue:


----------

