# am i an entp in a ne-fe loop or enfp?



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> Not exactly, because Jung's theory has issues itself, but he made some really important observations that the MBTI didn't apply to their system. The problem is that the extensions done are based on the initial misunderstandings and taking his words out of context done by M-B, his own writings were never put to test or made into a system. Also, as a result of this mess, there's a huge gap between MBTI theory and application, since the test and the studies done on it do not use the "8 functions", but only the dichotomies, yet all knowledge acquired from those results are being applied to 8function models when they were never tested to begin with. In fact, there are a few studies done on the function stacks systems, that showed they're mostly a mess, for example you can read here: https://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol69_0109.pdf


I've read some of that before when it was posted in another thread. I put a lot more weight into the functions than dichotomies. I personally never found the dichotomies a very convincing model to give a more rounded view of someone, whereas I do find the functions a more convincing picture. I think other experts can attribute meaning to a dead man's words and expand upon it and that's totally fine with me. It's all just theory anyway. It's only ever been based on observations from Jung anyway, not true science which can't be measured in the way you are suggesting. Which is fine.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Dscross said:


> Well, this is just semantics now. There are a million sources that call them 8 functions. They work in different ways so I think it's fine to call them 8, like most people do.


Science is not a democracy.



Dscross said:


> OK, provide me with some good sources then so we can have a discussion about it. You didn't even know how many functions there were so I can't imagine you know loads about Jungian theory tbh.


You have understanding issues (not a surprise). I didn't know how many functions they think there are, and manifestly, neither did you. Which is more concerning since you take what they say for reference.

Asking for sources about the most basic premises? How about you ask me to pull your own fingers out of your own ass... Do what 99.99% of percers don't and read Jung... to begin with.

Calling an oriented function a function is the main reason why you lots end up building the thought that every oriented function has its own independant, customized attitude. It's just semantics? That's the problem. Semantics matter_ just_ that much.

We can't have a good discussion about anything when you take science so lightly.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Science is not a democracy.


I would not class all of this whole theory, in any form, as rigidly scientific - unless you class observation as a science. If that's what you are looking for Jung or Myers/Briggs probably aren't the best place to start, as the foundations are built on observational evidence of people. So yes, it's very much up for discussion.

Jung’s findings were scientific in that sense that they were reproducible if the right method is correctly applied - if you have the training to recognise and interpret data. If you think that science should be restricted to methods that produce simple sense data - even if the theories that get you from sense data to their verification can be complicated then many would say, it isn't. To be fair, when it comes to psychology, I disagree with the strict limitation imposed by the latter notion.

But other experts are fine to build upon ideas and re-explaining things in a different way as it's not a strict science. There are no issues with that.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@IDontThinkSo you have the explanatory patience of Jungs typical Ti dom. That is, very little explanatory patience. 

@Dscross Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types 
The pdf can sometimes be found online to download for free. 
It's not an easy read, but read and reread as much as you can, (not just chapter 10) if you really want to understand it properly.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Kynx said:


> @IDontThinkSo you have the explanatory patience of Jungs typical Ti dom. That is, very little explanatory patience.
> 
> @Dscross Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types
> The pdf can sometimes be found online to download for free.
> It's not an easy read, but read and reread as much as you can, (not just chapter 10) if you really want to understand it properly.


Thank you for the suggestion. What is it exactly you think I'm misunderstanding though? All I'm really doing is saying it is ok to call them 8 functions and it is done so by a large majority of the community as i think it makes discussing them easier. What's the problem with that? You don't have to phrase things exactly the same way as Jung, especially if you are using his ideas to build more theories about functions stacks etc as jungian psychologists have done since.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Dscross said:


> if you have the training to recognise and interpret data


I have, you don't.



Kynx said:


> @IDontThinkSo you have the explanatory patience of Jungs typical Ti dom. That is, very little explanatory patience.


Doesn't really matter considering how he was contradicting his observations so much at that point. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dscross said:


> Thank you for the suggestion. What is it exactly you think I'm misunderstanding though? All I'm really doing is saying it is ok to call them 8 functions and it is done so by a large majority of the community as i think it makes discussing them easier. What's the problem with that? You don't have to phrase things exactly the same way as Jung, especially if you are using his ideas to build other theories about functions stacks etc.


Because I think you have the potential to understand the actual theory, rather than the mediocre 3rd-6th party misinterpretations that get recycled on the internet. 

Also, one misinterpretation gets built upon another misinterpretation and next thing every discussion on the forum revolves around irrelevant and inaccurate crap. People end up invalidating the very same theory which they're trying to discuss. 

When and if you do learn the actual theory, you will then understand why the misinterpretations are a problem which hinder real understanding.
Until then, it can't really be explained or understood. 

If you really cba to understand it, then I suggest you simply ignore everyone who disagrees with you or attempts to correct you. 
😁


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

IDontThinkSo said:


> Doesn't really matter considering how he was contradicting his observations so much at that point. 🤷‍♂️


It does matter because I want you to do my thinking for me and then patiently and kindly hand me the readily understandable information on a plate. 
Not a "Here's my conclusion and if you don't see it, you must be stupid" plate. 
I don't like that plate. Give me what I want. 

😋


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

Kynx said:


> It does matter because I want you to do my thinking for me and then patiently and kindly hand me the readily understandable information on a plate.
> Not a "Here's my conclusion and if you don't see it, you must be stupid" plate.
> I don't like that plate. Give me what I want.
> 
> 😋


I can only provide a consistent sequence of words that will somehow be misunderstood by you in a way that still makes you want to agree with it.


----------



## Skimt (May 24, 2020)

Kynx said:


> @Dscross Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types











Abstracts of the Collected Works of C.G. Jung


Alternate cover for 185575035X/9781855750357



www.goodreads.com


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

IDontThinkSo said:


> I can only provide a consistent sequence of words that will somehow be misunderstood by you in a way that still makes you want to agree with it.


Nope. 
Actually, I want argue with you, but I'm not confident that I should argue with you, so I don't. That doesn't mean i don't want to. It just means that when i do argue, I'll win. 
Then I will tag everyone on the forum to watch me win 😎

Then I will console you and reassure you that you're still clever enough to deserve my *cough * superior *cough * respect. 

😉


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Skimt said:


> Abstracts of the Collected Works of C.G. Jung
> 
> 
> Alternate cover for 185575035X/9781855750357
> ...


Not abstracts. We want the stolen original


----------



## Skimt (May 24, 2020)

Kynx said:


> Not abstracts. We want the stolen original


Abstract means summary.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Skimt said:


> Abstract means summary.


So lazy


----------



## Skimt (May 24, 2020)

Kynx said:


> So lazy


It's called _efficient_.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Kynx said:


> Because I think you have the potential to understand the actual theory, rather than the mediocre 3rd-6th party misinterpretations that get recycled on the internet.
> 
> Also, one misinterpretation gets built upon another misinterpretation and next thing every discussion on the forum revolves around irrelevant and inaccurate crap. People end up invalidating the very same theory which they're trying to discuss.
> 
> ...


OK, I can see you are just trying to explain, which, to be fair, I do appreciate. I've read Jung's work the past, but a long time ago and not all of it. I do think some of this is a language and how to explain/simplify issue rather than a misunderstanding issue, but I'll re-read it.

Do you call them 8 functions, just out of interest? My main issue is that the language of functions within function stacks and shadow functions gets completely thrown out the window if we stop using that language.

Just for the record, I'm not a huge MBTI test fan. The various function theories that originated in Jung's work and were built on later are all that interest me - I think the letter combinations used within the MBTI are useful, though. Don't mistake me for someone who believes all the MBTI stuff.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dscross said:


> OK, I can see you are just trying to explain, which, to be fair, I do appreciate. I've read Jung's work the past, but a long time ago and not all of it. I do think some of this is a language and explanation issue rather than a misunderstanding issue, but I'll re-read it.
> 
> Do you call them 8 functions, just out of interest? My main issue is that the language of functions within function stacks and shadow functions gets completely thrown out the window if we stop using that language.
> 
> Just for the record, I'm not a huge MBTI test fan. The various function theories are all that interest me - I think the letter combinations used within the MBTI are useful, though.


4 functions, 2 attitudes which = 8 function _types_. 

Various function theories get muddled up together. I found it most helpful to start with Jung's theory. Once i had an adequate understanding of Jung's theory, I could then look at each subsequent theory and make my own judgements about which adjustments are valid and which adjustments were pulled out of someone's ass.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Kynx said:


> Various function theories get muddled up together. I found it most helpful to start with Jung's theory. Once i had an adequate understanding of Jung's theory, I could then look at each subsequent theory and make my own judgements about which adjustments are valid and which adjustments were pulled out of someone's ass.


I know they are attitudes - that's not new information to me. But they act differently depending on the attitude and therefore it wasn't a problem for me to follow what most people do and call them individual functions or explanations start getting convoluted. A lot of these function debates I have seem to be around phrasing and using simple explanations. Boiling things down to simple explanations isn't an issue for me as it seems to be for some people. That won't change after I re-read the theory as I think it's a good thing. I think people misread simple explanations for a lack of understanding because they see so many people misunderstanding it that they assume everyone does.


----------



## V-v (27 d ago)

enxpgirl said:


> i'll just start this by saying that english isn't my first language, so i'll probably make some grammar mistakes or whatever.
> 
> i thought this would be a small text but turns out its fucking huge, so, if you have the patience to read it (entps i know you dont), i thank you SO much. i need help finding my type so i can have a sense of identity again.
> 
> ...


I know it has already been more than 2 years but still I want to answer.
Lest star with the fact that there is a big misconception about feelers being overly emotional and caring with others and thinkers barely feeling emotions and being rude all the time. Both feel emotions, both can be overly emotional, both can be almost emotionless and both can be rude, especially when they are immature or unhealthy, but the way they feel or act according to their emotions is what is different.
I actually have seen Entps that are really nice and empathetic and Enfps that are really mean and selfish, because your type doesn’t define how nice you are, your maturity and wether you are a healthy or unhealthy version of that types is what defines it.
The fact that you react like that when your family offends you sounds more like an unhealthy way Fe is showing through you. My brother is a young Entp and he reacts similar to you when he is mad or under stress, in his case is because we grew up in a pretty chaotic household and to be honest the way he reacts is a reflect of what he grew up seeing.
And also being insecure and not having a lot of friends can happen to Entps too, remember that the stereotypes of the 16 personalities are just that stereotypes, you can’t really use them to truly know your real type.
To me in sounds more like you are an Entp, you seem to have Ne and Fe and also the fact that you investigate deep into subjects (including this one) is really common for Ti users.


----------

