# Why does ENFP get the rep of being very bubbly and ENTP get the rep of being...



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@TyranAmiros

Ne doesn't work subordinate to Si, nor does it see through the lens of Si. All extraverted functions perceive the object as a whole, meaning that the object is not separated from from its sensual qualities: 



> *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*;





> Again in this controversy we can easily recognize the basic elements we have already met in the disputes discussed earlier: the abstract standpoint that abhors any contamination with the concrete object, *and the concretistic that is turned towards the object*.





> .The man who is oriented to the idea apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea. *But the man who is oriented to the object 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.


Not only that but an extravert's psyche is in complete conformity to predominate extraversion:



> *One cannot be introverted or extraverted without being so in every respect.* For example, to be “introverted” means that everything in the psyche happens as it must happen according to the law of the introvert’s nature. Were that not so, the statement that a certain individual is “introverted” would be as irrelevant as the statement that he is six feet tall, or that he has brown hair, or is brachycephalic. These statements contain no more than the facts they express. The term “introverted” is incomparably more exacting. *It means that the consciousness as well as the unconscious of the introvert must have certain definite qualities, that his general behaviour, his relation to people, and even the course of his life show certain typical characteristics. *
> 
> [940] *Introversion or extraversion, as a typical attitude, means an essential bias which conditions the whole psychic process*, establishes the habitual mode of reaction, and thus determines not only the style of behaviour but also the quality of subjective experience. Not only that, it determines the kind of compensation the unconscious will produce.


A point that should be brought up is that Ne-Si is differentiated Ne and undifferentiated Si. An undifferentiated functions is one that coelesces its own seperate components that forms a negation, while merging with with other functions. Whereas on the other hand, differentiation maintains the distinctiveness of all its seperate components, and separated from all the other functions:



> 14. DIFFERENTIATION means the development of differences, the separation of parts from a whole. In this work I employ the concept of differentiation chiefly with respect to the psychological functions (q.v.). *So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions— thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.— that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic (q.v.) condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself*. Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies, as for instance in the sexualization (Freud) of feeling and thinking in neurosis.
> 
> *As a rule, the undifferentiated function is also characterized by ambivalence and ambitendency, 34 i.e., every position entails its own negation, and this leads to characteristic inhibitions in the use of the undifferentiated function. Another feature is the fusing together of its separate components; thus, undifferentiated sensation is vitiated by the coalescence of different sensory spheres (colour-hearing), and undifferentiated feeling by confounding hate with love. *To the extent that a function is largely or wholly unconscious, it is also undifferentiated; it is not only fused together in its parts but also merged with other functions. *Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other.* Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; *only a differentiated function is capable of being directed.*


As you can see an Ne Dom's Si will coelesce itself causing a negation, which is one of the reasons why it is repressed. Now to focus on what intuition is:



> 35. INTUITION (L. intueri, ‘to look at or into’). I regard intuition as a basic psychological function (q.v.). *It is the function that mediates perceptions in an unconscious way. *Everything, whether outer or inner objects or their relationships, can be the focus of this perception. The peculiarity of intuition is that it is neither sense perception, nor feeling, nor intellectual inference, although it may also appear in these forms. In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. *Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents.*





> We can distinguish between active and passive fantasy. Active fantasies are *the product of intuition* (q.v.), i.e., they are evoked by an attitude (q.v.) directed to the perception of unconscious contents, as a result of which the libido (q.v.) *immediately invests all the elements emerging from the unconscious and, by association with parallel material, brings them into clear focus in visual form*.





> *Active fantasies, on the other hand, owe their existence not so much to this unconscious process as to a conscious propensity to assimilate hints or fragments of lightly-toned unconscious complexes and, by associating them with parallel elements, to elaborate them in clearly visual form.* It is not necessarily a question of a dissociated psychic state, but rather of a positive participation of consciousness.


As you can see intuition is an Active fantasy that focuses on assimilating hints or fragments of lightly toned unconscious complexes, by associating them with parallel elements so they can be elaborated in visual form, which presents itself as whole and complete, which coincides with the next quote:



> The primary function of intuition, however,* is simply to transmit images, or perceptions of relations between things, which could not be transmitted by the other functions or only in a very roundabout way.* These images have the value of specific insights which have a decisive influence on action whenever intuition is given priority.


The clear visual forms that present themselves whole and complete, due to being created by perceiving hints and/or fragments of lightly toned unconscious complexes, is synanymous to the tramission of images, or perceptions of the relations between things, which I must say again, presents itself whole and complete. 

What separates Ne from Ni, is that Ne is focused on the object perceiving its potential by perceiving its relation with other things, and the relation of its properties, through what what is described above as Active Fantasy. Since Ne is an extraverted function, it is focused on the whole concrete object that is sensuously perceived, instead of abstracting anything. In other words Ne does not abstract intuitions, it introjects them into the object, it focuses its whole being in the object:



> Psychologically speaking, introjection is a process of assimilation (q.v.), while projection is a process of dissimilation. Introjection is an *assimilation of object to subject*, projection a dissimilation of object from subject through the expulsion of a subjective content into the object (v. Projection, active). *Introjection is a process of extraversion (q.v.), since assimilation to the object requires empathy (q.v.) and an investment of the object with libido (q.v.).* A passive and an active introjection may be distinguished: transference phenomena in the treatment of the neuroses belong to the former category, *and, in general, all cases where the object exercises a compelling influence on the subject, while empathy as a process of adaptation belongs to the latter category*.





> The outward reaction characterizes the extravert, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. *The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object.* He gives himself easily to the world in a form that is pleasing and acceptable, and it is always understandable even when it is unpleasing. *Because of his quick reactivity and discharge of emotion, valuable and worthless psychic contents will be projected together into the object; he will react with winsome manners as well as with dour thoughts and affects.*


Therefore Ne represses Si the most because it is its biggest hindrance for a complete objective reality, which is what Ne is focused on, through perceiving all the possibilities of the object and the objective situation. It does not really on an introverted perception to form its possibilities, instead the objective possibilities are inherent in the concrete object, or objective situations:



> But since *extraverted intuition is directed predominantly to objects, it actually comes very close to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude to external objects is just as likely to make use of sensation*. Hence, if intuition is to function properly, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. By sensation I mean in this instance the simple and immediate sense-impression understood as a clearly defined physiological and psychic datum. *This must be expressly established beforehand because, if I ask an intuitive how he orients himself, he will speak of things that are almost indistinguishable from sense-impressions*. Very often he will even use the word “sensation.” He does have sensations, of course, *but he is not guided by them as such; he uses them merely as starting-points for his perceptions*. He selects them by unconscious predilection. It is not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, that is accorded the chief value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value is enhanced by the intuitive’s unconscious attitude. *In this way it may eventually come to acquire the chief value, and to his conscious mind it appears to be pure sensation. But actually it is not so.*


The sensuous perceived concrete object directly from objective reality, not hindered by undifferentiated Si, is what the Ne user utilizes to kickstart their perceptions, or transmit images, of the relations between things, objects/objective situations in this case, by using the sensations as starting points to associate with parralell elements so they can be elaborated in clear visual form, presented whole and complete, with a certitude of conviction and certainty:



> *Intuitive knowledge possesses an intrinsic certainty and conviction*, which enabled Spinoza (and Bergson) to uphold the scientia intuitiva as the highest form of knowledge. Intuition shares this quality with sensation (q.v.), whose certainty rests on its physical foundation. *The certainty of intuition rests equally on a definite state of psychic “alertness” of whose origin the subject is unconscious. *


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Splash Shin said:


> I've always wanted to read That book, but I really don't like the way it's written. Chapter 10 was very insightful but it was a drag.
> I'm actually about to purchase 3 or 4 decent books right now. Do you have any you'd recommend? Maybe i'll finally lock down my type after reading them.


I'd suggest reading chapter 2 and 7 as well if you don't want to read the whole book.

If you're interested in Jung and Types:
Psychological Types (Collected Works edition)
Analytical Psychology (The Tavistock Lectures)
Introduction to Jungian Psychology: Notes of the Seminar on Analytical Psychology Given in 1925 

From Jung's closest student and colleague, Marie-Louise Von Franz (in plainer language):
Lectures on Jungian Typology


Jung / MBTI hybrid:

Lenore Thomson:
Personality Type: An Owner's Manual

MBTI:

Isabel Myers:
Gifts Differing: Understanding Personality Type


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

_*A-FUCKING-MEN TO THIS. 

*_no but seriously, this is important


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

I've found that ENTPs poke a lot of fun but they usually mean well, or they don't mean anything at all and they just like to hear themselves talk. ENFPs are usually gentle but if they are pushed they will tell you off and make it personal.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

*Take my thousand thanks,* @_Cesspool_

Finally someone with common f**king sense to make end of all these stupid stereotypes, the one about ENFP's being bubbly included.

If more people were actually paying attention to theory itself and Jung's writings instead of type descriptions and "you know you're intuitive when..." type of threads, the stereotypes would be already dead and community would flourish like a yellow submarine in the sea of extraordinary, productive and intellectually stimulating discussion.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

KraChZiMan said:


> *Take my thousand thanks,* @_Cesspool_
> 
> Finally someone with common f**king sense to make end of all these stupid stereotypes, the one about ENFP's being bubbly included.
> 
> If more people were actually paying attention to theory itself and Jung's writings instead of type descriptions and "you know you're intuitive when..." type of threads, the stereotypes would be already dead and community would flourish like a yellow submarine in the sea of extraordinary, productive and intellectually stimulating discussion.


That's funny because whenever I bring up exactly what Jung states word by word, a lot of people seem to be up in arms to disagree with it at all costs. I even get accused of being religious, needing authority, or having "faith". Hmmm.............


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> That's funny because whenever I bring up exactly what Jung states word by word, a lot of people seem to be up in arms to disagree with it at all costs. I even get accused of being religious, needing authority, or having "faith". Hmmm.............


I would hazard a guess that your interpretation is the problem, then.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Raawx said:


> I would hazard a guess that your interpretation is the problem, then.


I just post quotes that contradict the opinions of others, its not really an interpretation, but if others want to believe so, then go ahead.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Shadow Logic said:


> I just post quotes that contradict the opinions of others, its not really an interpretation, but if others want to believe so, then go ahead.


I think the culprit is that it is much easier to blame someone else than it is to demolish a world view. That is, if one part is wrong, then everything else that relied on that is wrong, and if this is the foundation to everything else then the entire understanding needs to be knocked over then rebuilt piece by piece...yeah much easier to assume the information presented that contradicts must be wrong haha.

I can see the appeal of quoting sources. If people have a problem with it then they aren't tearing your ideas or interpretations, rather someone else's. No hard feelings over it all.


I do have a question (sorry slightly off topic), how do you choose your sources?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Ksara said:


> I do have a question (sorry slightly off topic), how do you choose your sources?


Understanding Typology is like playing the Telephone game. You'll understand the intended message better by getting it directly from the originator.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Ksara said:


> I think the culprit is that it is much easier to blame someone else than it is to demolish a world view. That is, if one part is wrong, then everything else that relied on that is wrong, and if this is the foundation to everything else then the entire understanding needs to be knocked over then rebuilt piece by piece...yeah much easier to assume the information presented that contradicts must be wrong haha.
> 
> I can see the appeal of quoting sources. If people have a problem with it then they aren't tearing your ideas or interpretations, rather someone else's. No hard feelings over it all.


Yea I know, once you bring up something that contradicts them they get so defensive because they would rather think or feel they're right or knowledgeable, rather than go out and actually try to understand something without letting their personal views or biases get in the way. You are right though about quoting sources, everybody in the world can say its wrong, but that doesn't bother me the least, because as you said, its not my interpretation or ideas they are trying to tear down, but instead Jung's, the same guy they're trying to interpret. Its hypocritical and contradictory but I guess some people aren't aware of their own contradicting nature. 




> I do have a question (sorry slightly off topic), how do you choose your sources?


As @PaladinX has stated, the only way to understand cognitive functions as they were first created is to go to the source. Everything else derives from it, and is an interpretation of it, so I would do the exact thing I would do if it was any other subject, I would go to the source and understand the concepts directly, instead of interpreting someone else's interpretation, which I think is painfully obvious that an interpretation of an interpretation is twice removed from the core. PaladinX brought up a great point example of the telephine game, you say one thing then wait till it has made its way past a few people, and then ask the 10th person what was that you said, it will always be some deviation from what you actually said, inevitable misunderstanding your position.

The only source on cognitive functions is Jung so I would say start there. Not that you can't look into other interpretations, but its best to read the source to understand the interpretations and why others may have deviated or interpreted what it is they interpreted. I think the key point to make, is to not let your preconceived notions cloud your view, and to try to understand the material for what it is, word by word, its the only way to avoid misunderstandings and flawed interpretations.

So my suggestion is to read Psychological Types, the whole book instead of just chapter X, in order to full understand everything being said and presented.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@Shadow Logic @PaladinX
Thank you for the replies.


----------



## Definitely Maybe (Apr 2, 2014)

Kitfool said:


> *Self indulgent rant:* As far as I've noticed, ENTPs can be deceptively sensitive. They definitely earned the "troll" title, but when that Fe comes out, it comes out. They will just get that hurt look and it is sad. All the women in my family are Fi users, (sister is ISFP 9w8, mom is ESFP 7w8, and of course I am an ENFP 7w6) and I haven't seen either of them cry in probably 8+ years, and I'm certainly not crying. To be fair, my dad is is an ISTP 5w6 and I've only seen him cry once (still once more than the Fi brigade!). We are not an emotional family. We (the Fi users) are not easily affected by other people I think, unlike Fe users, even if it is tertiary or inferior. We always have that belief deep down that we are right and anyone who goes against us is stupid, so why give a shit? It also helps that our enneatypes are 9 and 7 which avoid negativity. But we are a bit silly. Not good with directions or math, at least.
> 
> *Rant over: *Anyway. My main point is that I think ENTPs can definitely be just as silly and bubbly as ENFPs, I agree with you there. I would also agree that the ENTPs I know at least talk big but rarely accomplish anything.


I think the issue of the stereotyping comes from looking at the dominant functions and not the type as a whole. I'm an ISTP and I don't know crap about fixing a car. When comparing types, the issue of functions also relate to where they fall in the stack.

As far as ENTP/ENFP goes, you can draw the same comparisons to ESTP/ESFP. The ESFPs I've met were all very personable, fun-loving people.. but have a _very_ serious side. In my experience, the ESFPs were often more serious than the ESTPs (Fi vs Ti). In fact, the ESTP is probably more sensitive due to their Fe; you just don't see it unless you hit it. 

As an ISTP, I have Fe as my 4th function. I am much more sensitive among people close to me (where I am more apt to reveal my Fe). Anyone else, I could give a flying crap. Feeler types are not the only sensitive ones.


----------



## lackofmops (Mar 13, 2014)

Cesspool said:


> Inventive, when in reality it would be flipped, based on the functions. I think a lot of people don't really understand the functions of the judging function axis, and this leads to misunderstanding.
> 
> Remember, thinking is about systematizing and making plans. It is NOT about 'logic'.
> 
> ...


Shaddup.


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

I don't think the word "bubbly" has the negative connotations you've assigned it here.


----------



## NIHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Well ENFPs are bubbly loving weirdos. That part is true. We're also not directionless. You're right about us being intelligent and going after our goals. I say goals in the plural because that's what it is. We're smart at a lot of subjects and prefer a plethora of ideas to entertain us. Normally we will work on these projects simultaneously and with a great big bubbly smile on our faces. If we have a J in the team then it's an unstoppable duo and together we will rule the world. *Shakes fist in air*.



owlboy said:


> My favourite writer on this subject apart from the man himself is Lenore Thompson. IMO she is the most in line with Jung's original intentions [unlike, say, Kiersey, who goes flying off the wall IMO] but her writing is far more accessible. She uses pop culture references and such to explain how functions work.
> 
> [sometimes she goes nuts as well, like the whole ''crows nest'' theory is needless distraction to me, but her descriptions of functions are accurate and accessible.]


Ohh sounds like a new read for me.



Shadow Logic said:


> @TyranAmiros, at first I was going to disagree with your assertion that Ne rejects truth, but instead I think I can agree with it, and that you may have helped me open my eyes to something I wasn't aware of before, even though I still could argue the "rejecting" aspect.
> 
> I wouldn't say Ne "rejects" it per say because Ne's focus isn't on looking for actual truth, but potential truths (which are truths in themselves if the context they are presented in ever becomes a reality), though I could easily see why one would see it as a rejection. I would say "suppression" may be a more accurate term, because the truth isn't rejected, it is still there among the plethora of possibilities, but its (the actual truths) effect of singularity is suppressed in order to bring up all of its counter parts, as in all the potential truths not excluding the one actual truth.


I do love that word plethora  . Yes I was thinking the same thing on this subject we ascertain all the possibilities and then reject the improbable and are left with the conceivable contingencies. With in those we try the hats on in seconds normally a healthy ENFP might pick out the most favorable likelihood and run with it. This of course regarding the welfare of others and taking into account how that choice might affect the outcome. Meaning I hardly have chosen the path that would destroy or "step on" another person to get a more favorable conclusion. Yes there are many truths to a singular problem.



Khiro said:


> I don't think the word "bubbly" has the negative connotations you've assigned it here.


I agree. I don't assign the word bubbly to being of unintelligent vapid flake who can't understand the principles of logic. Bubbly to me is effervescent or carbonated. The first word being the choice I would designate it for in this context. We are far from being simple, shortsighted, brainless dummies but "bubbly" is correct. Effervescent meaning that we sparkle in the sun to people. We shine in the darkness with resilient energy expansive with our knowledge and pliable with an open mind for learning.


----------

