# Hi everyone! Yep, it's ANOTHER fellow trying to decide whether he's ENTP or ENFP XD



## ChrisC99 (Aug 3, 2011)

Everyone wants me to be THEIR function!! I feel so...wanted and loved ;D (Personality type: magnetic! Or vain XD)

Thanks so much Datamaiden! That's exactly why the T/F dichotomy is particularly confusing to me: to me, the logical decision is always the one that makes the most PEOPLE happy in the end...and conversely, doing what's right and most helpful for others is the most logical choice in a group dynamic. So I find it difficult to separate a preference for one from the other! 

Also, they often claim intraverted thinking will make one go by rules or conventions before feelings. But what if the prevailing norms don't seem logical to the ENTP - do many ENTPs also eschew convention?

So, the cognitive functions are where the gravy really lies in the roast, right? I suppose cognitive function theory could be envisioned in the context of 'steps' one makes in interacting with themself and their world: an ENTP for example will first make intuitions and ideas based on active interaction with their surroundings; second, process these through an internal 'logic filter' to make their decisions (does this sound logical?); and third, consult their tertiary as a 'backup' to consider how their actions will impact everyone's feelings around them.

An ENFP, meanwhile, would go through the same first step, but then process these through an internal 'feeling filter' to make their decisions (does this feel right?); and consult their tertiary to consider whether their actions are logical in the impact they will have outwardly.

Does this sound about right? (Why IS the secondary always internal, and the tertiary always external in extroverts in this model anyway? I mean, isn't it theoretically possible for someone's next thought after extraverted intuiting to be extraverted feeling or thinking? Or is the central concept based on the idea that an extrovert's next actions MUST follow some internal evaluations?? And couldn't it also be theoretically possible for a person to switch between the two based on mood or situation???

I am almost universally accused of the things that ENFPs seem to be known for, behaviors that would seem unusual for an ENTP: absolutely gushing sentiment, annoying people with over-the-top enthusiasm and sticking my nose in 'counseling' them (whether they ask for it or not!); crying over any sweet movie, and missing sleep over it for MONTHS if I so much as think a friend doesn't like me or that I hurt somebody. I don't relate to people who seem even remotely 'coldhearted', don't let go of emotional hurt or attachment easily, and I share my innermost feelings very readily. Does this suggest Fi, or Fe?

...Now on the other side of the psychological coin, I ALSO approach everything from the analytical standpoint, and all of my 'big' choices in life (i.e. the ones that aren't just for fun) are based on an internal framework, a long-term plan. To me logic is the greatest instrument for determining actions that will ultimately help people in the long run, and sometimes I can be detached and even seem a little cold giving fact-based advice when somebody's in emotional pain (although this is partly because their pain can hurt me so much that keeping detached makes me more helpful!). I work in medical science, which demands a great deal of putting emotion aside 
(but then again, unlike many people who seem to only get into the field out of fascination, my main reason for getting into it WAS to help people like disabled friends I'd once had as well). Does this seem more suggestive of Ti, or Te?

I guess when people seem on the fence between these two, the problem is a strong tertiary which can resemble the secondary! So I guess in order to resolve whether I'm an ENTP for whom everything IS inwardly thinking-based but who juggles that with very high extraverted feeling - or an ENFP for whom everything is inwardly feeling-based but who balances those tendencies with very high extraverted thinking, what really has to be determined is which is truly first or internally-based, and which follows secondly as 'backup' relating to the external world!


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> So, the cognitive functions are where the gravy really lies in the roast, right? I suppose cognitive function theory could be envisioned in the context of 'steps' one makes in interacting with themself and their world: an ENTP for example will first make intuitions and ideas based on active interaction with their surroundings; second, process these through an internal 'logic filter' to make their decisions (does this sound logical?); and third, consult their tertiary as a 'backup' to consider how their actions will impact everyone's feelings around them.
> 
> An ENFP, meanwhile, would go through the same first step, but then process these through an internal 'feeling filter' to make their decisions (does this feel right?); and consult their tertiary to consider whether their actions are logical in the impact they will have outwardly.
> 
> Does this sound about right? (Why IS the secondary always internal, and the tertiary always external in extroverts in this model anyway? I mean, isn't it theoretically possible for someone's next thought after extraverted intuiting to be extraverted feeling or thinking? Or is the central concept based on the idea that an extrovert's next actions MUST follow some internal evaluations?? And couldn't it also be theoretically possible for a person to switch between the two based on mood or situation???


Gosh you're such a Ne-dom. You are pretty right in your analysis with the exception that Fi in ENFP provides a measure of what is worthwhile relative to the person, its not so much about feeling in an emotional sense (though I guess you could interpret it as "what do I feel is valuable to me?")

As far as the order of the functions the general consensus is that perception functions need to be balanced by judgment functions. 










So in John Beebe's model the functions can be thought of as a stick figure human. The 'head' is the hero or dominant function and the 'feet' is the inferior. So like a see-saw with dominant on end and inferior on the other, these two diametrically opposed functions balance either other. If you are ENP your dominant is Ne, forever searching the world and devising 'what ifs' and the inferior is Si providing a semi-unconscious grounding to self based on subjective experience. The Ne/Si paradigm can be represented by the two main characters in the Pixar movie _"Up"_. Russell, the little boy is Ne. Precocious, exploring the world without judgment with an open mind, always on the look out for the next possibility. Carl, the old man, is Si (and stubborn Si at that), unable to view the world he's actually living in apart from his subjective experience to the point of having shut the entire real world out. He literally lives in the past choosing to adamantly hold on to those representations of his past that provide meaning to him. This is the basic underlying context of the film, the old man learning to 'have a new adventure' and the boy learning to temper his ambitions with real world grounding. 

The interplay between dominant and inferior can be a vexing one for most people because the inferior is literally the opposite position of the dominant perspective. It's like trying to think with your feet. As such the inferior on its own is very awkward and can cause great stress if its not properly (and sometimes painstakingly) assimilated into the psyche. Think of it like being blindfolded and having to trust your only your feet. Sometimes when you are super stressed out, you might very well consider such a radical option as a way out, but because of the weakness of the inferior this usually ends up in disaster. 

When the inferior is individuated later in life its sort of like a baby learning how to walk because there is not yet effective control (and you've lived an entire life trying to keep it from popping up and ruining your ego like holding a jack in the box in its box). You might often see, in middle age, people with inferior-Se become reckless or indulge in dangerous physical expressiveness. Or ESPs with inferior-Ni try to become sagacious and wise (opposite from their normal "I only trust what I can see" perspective). And you see them begin to believe in weird things or come to odd conclusions. You begin to understand why the dominant and only the dominant would be strong enough to balance the inferior.

Now the interior functions are a bit different. They're like arms on a person. They keep the entire thing balanced. The auxiliary in ENFP is a judgment function to support the dominant (perception in ENP). The counterbalance to the auxiliary is the tertiary (the left hand or what Beebe calls the 'eternal child'). 

Here is a good synopsis from the Lenore Thomson Exegesis Wiki. These are suppositions but they give you a decent idea of the basic theory.



> When the life people have created by making sense of things via their Dominant Function has pushed them too far out of balance in an Extraverted or Introverted way, the opposite or Inferior Function floods them with motives and dissatisfactions that have no place in their accustomed sense of self. At times like this, people feel stuck, like everything is against them and there is nothing they can do--at least nothing honorable.
> 
> The callings of the Inferior Function cannot be satisfied directly. They're too far opposed to a person's current investments, and virtually unknowable from their present perspective. Trying to steer through life by your Inferior Function really does lead to a sacrifice of self: dishonorable, out-of-control, even infantile behavior.
> 
> ...





> To me logic is the greatest instrument for determining actions that will ultimately help people in the long run, and sometimes I can be detached and even seem a little cold giving fact-based advice when somebody's in emotional pain (although this is partly because their pain can hurt me so much that keeping detached makes me more helpful!).


This would be consistent with Auxiliary Ti and Tertiary Fe which is not nearly as strong as Ti (which is basically a right-hand man for the dominant). Your use of Fe in the tertiary would probably be inconsistent at best especially relative to someone who had Fe in the dominant or auxiliary. Some ESTP's sometimes come off as bullies because their Fe mindset is often somewhat immature. They're aware of social convention but not sure how to manage themselves relative to it. So they fall back to dominant Se to create a physical solution for problem solving instead of one that advances the greatest good for the group.



> the problem is a strong tertiary which can resemble the secondary!


A strong tertiary theoretically shouldn't resemble the auxiliary. Remember they are opposites if your aux is introverted judgment, the tert must be extraverted judgment. Ti and Fe in theory shouldn't resemble one another. But what happens since no one is perfectly balanced and many people are far from it, extraverts might rely mostly on their extraverted functions because they cause very little stress to use. If you are someone naturally oriented to the outside world, using your external functions comes easier than considering your personal subjective ones. Inverse for introverts. So extraverts often complain about being blown in the wind or loosing themselves in their activities. Introverts spend so much time in their own minds they don't know how to deal with the real world. So some argue that what happens is that the tertiary in an unbalanced person might in actuality become stronger than the auxiliary (like in the case of the ESTP bully. If his aux-logic was robust it would help him strike a balance between what he experiences and social standards in a way that made logical sense to him). 

One thing to remember is that introverted functions by their nature are self-referencing. It means they aren't interested in the external world only the subjective perspective of the individual. Ti is subjective thinking about subjective issues (different from Te which logically evaluates the concrete and objective). Fi is personal judgments of what something means to you, or what its intrinsic value is to you without regard for what society says (Fe). Ni is like Ne/Se but instead of looking at the outside world Jung describes sort of as perception of your unconscious; perceiving the images and symbols of the mind as opposed to the real world. Si takes what you sense and withdraws only that which is important to you. (We all have five senses but where Se just takes the input from the senses for its own sake, Si wants to hone in on which of those carries the most subjective importance.) So a person who leans too heavily on extraversion loses himself, and a person who leans too much on introversion loses his perspective and judgment about the world around him.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> In your case though, your writing style is very flowery and stream-of-consciousness (Ne) in a way that doesn't seem to be filtered through an internal logic structure. I would suspect ENTP's would be much more succinct.


Yes, one of the first thoughts when I saw this thread was "he writes just the way I would write if I could type fast enough to keep up at all with my thought process." Instead with the slowness of typing things out, Ti becomes heavily involved and shortens things up a lot. But then I'm very much ambiverted. Perhaps an ENTP who is more extraverted (or can type over 100 wpm  ) would be able to write like this too. 



> So it really comes down to are you someone whose values are steadfast, you are who you are at all times (Fi), or someone who is keenly aware of the values of those around you and calibrate yourself according to external influences (Fe)? Once you establish which you are the answer becomes apparent.


Agreed.



> Ask yourself how many of your values can relate to outside influences like your parents, church, community, etc. If you are a person who deep down feels you have your own internal sense of morality and what is right vs. wrong, rather than defer to some external sentiment (like church or the culture of your community or peers) it will become quickly apparent.


I'm not so sure if it's so clear like this when Fe is tertiary. I don't really care at all what churches or culture have to say if I don't see any reason or benefit in it. Also, "internal sense of morality" to some tiny extent seems to occur in most humans, it just seems a lot more _developed_ in those with Fi.


----------



## ChrisC99 (Aug 3, 2011)

WOW Liquidlight - just, wow! Thank you so much for taking the time on such an amazingly detailed response...that really does help me to understand the subject much more clearly! (And further corroborate your own knowledge of this stuff of course  )

And ElectricSparkle, thanks again for your great insights too! It does seem that it may still be confusing to resolve exactly to one extent things like sensitivity and caring are products of extraverted versus intraverted feeling functions...just as it it to differentiate between Ti or the value system of Fi for [ostensibly] logic-based decision making.

Here's a thought: it was pointed out at work today that one of my struggles (and advantages!) as a scientist is that I think of EVERYTHING in 'big picture' terms; I struggle with details, which seem mundane and repetitive, and in that sense am NOT a perfectionist...but rather every time I look at data I'll walk off thinking of the worth or significance of it instead (wow, think what THIS could mean) - which is why I often think of ideas that other people haven't thought of.

Are these characteristics of Ne-dominants in general, or would this seem to point to a preference for Fi over Ti as well?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> but rather every time I look at data I'll walk off thinking of the worth or significance of it instead (wow, think what THIS could mean)


Hard to say. Could be Ne+Fi, could also be Ne+Fe.


----------



## ChrisC99 (Aug 3, 2011)

Ahhhh...now HERE'S a finished paper plate to feed our little campfire! I was reading up some more on the differences between intraverted and extraverted functions, and it seems that one way of looking at it is that extraverted functions are justified by concensus while intraverted functions are self-justified.

If I understand this correctly, a Ti-aux for instance would need no justification for their thinking other than the thrill of having a question to pursue or problem to solve...whereas a Te-tertiary depends on outside evidence or insight as to whether the logic is sound. The latter will also be results-oriented: pursue a problem or systematize ideas and objects in order to achieve something tangible, that ultimately fulfills the inner need motivated by Fi and its driving values.

The same distinction is true of those feely-functions: an Fi-aux would create for him/herself a set of ideals governing right or wrong or relevance of actions, and subsequent decisions would be made (and even Te would be pursued) based on that personal set of principles even if it flies in the face of what everyone else thinks or does. Whereas an Fe-tertiary would base values extrinsically; right and wrong course of action is measured against the ideals held by the group or society at large, with the prime inward motive being driven by Ti and its thirst for fact-seeking.

Sound about spot-on?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> extraverted functions are justified by concensus while intraverted functions are self-justified.


Correct (though Se and Ne aren't necessarily reliant on consensus).



> If I understand this correctly, a Ti-aux for instance would need no justification for their thinking other than the thrill of having a question to pursue or problem to solve...whereas a Te-tertiary depends on outside evidence or insight as to whether the logic is sound. The latter will also be results-oriented: pursue a problem or systematize ideas and objects in order to achieve something tangible, that ultimately fulfills the inner need motivated by Fi and its driving values.


This is very well put. And you can see how someone say with over-reliance on Ne+Te (and undeveloped Fi) would be a bit of a train wreck.

Everything you said sounds right.


----------



## ChrisC99 (Aug 3, 2011)

It at once seemed as though BOTH of the extraverted judging functions suited me, but niether in the intraverted sense. Alas, further reading on cognitive function theory and discussions thereof revealed valuable clues.

When an extraverted intuitive-dominant has thinking as their auxiliary (or 'helper function' as I like to call it) the way an ENTP does, then the inward, personal thoughts that follow or 'back up' the ideas they're bursting with via interaction with the outside world are impersonal: they're based on patterns, organization. Yes, the extraverted feeling tertiary can vary from a mere afterthought to a well-developed mode of interaction and expression, depending on the person...but that intraverted pattern-seeking auxiliary will still be the root basis for what an ENTP does, one way or the other. For an ENTP, feelings are justified by impersonal logic, and what's deemed appropriate for the group at large is more important than individual feelings.

It was an easy misidentification for me to make, designating intraverted thinking as my auxiliary, since both extraverted intuitives by definition live to generate ideas first and foremost. But lo and behold...that is not how my mind works. Once I've achieved the thrill of interacting with the world and coming up with glistening new ideas, the personal thoughts that ensue based on that are not impersonal and detached, they do not seek factual patterns above all else. They are an elaborate system of values defining and redefining why I do everything I'm about to do, who it will ultimately help in the long run. Accepted conventions mean nothing to me: what's right has a deep moral base, derived from putting myself in the other person's shoes. Conversely when I seek approval from others, it's also to feed my personal feelings; there is no logical base. I don't seek facts or systematize them for their own sake, only to achieve a desired end. I systematize and apply logic in the outside world (Te) only to serve the pursuit of a purpose to which I attribute personal value...and as the puerile function I can tend to neglect the mundane details of systematizing. The reasoning is not self-justified or done for its own sake, as an intraverted auxiliary would be; it's done to serve the pursuit of ideas (Ne) and the sense of what matters are of personal importance to myself or others at the individual level (Fi) - and THAT is the function that is self-justified.

Well then it's settled - I AM officially certified for ENFP-hoooood! In this certification I hereby reserve the right to be hyperactive, zany, and experience flights of insight before I even know what to do with them XD...but thoroughly love every step of the way!

*Bangs gavel*

Aww, thank you all so much!! This was fun...I'll MISS this forum discussion! Now I think I'll go see what OTHER threads there are to explore/create


----------



## ChrisC99 (Aug 3, 2011)

Just a thought/question on ENTPs and ENFPs in general: 

ENTPs are known for keeping their inner feelings closely guarded: "It's hard to really get to know an ENTP" is the common saying. Which cognitive function explains that? Is it the fact that Fi (i.e. being in touch with their inner feelings) isn't well developed, or is that more related to their tertiary Fe (i.e. expression of feelings)?

Now for ENFPs: It's said that they're famed for possessing a 'silly switch', able to transition from being zany and lighthearted one moment to serious and professorial the next. Same question - which cognitive function(s) explains that dichotomy? Is it summoning their tertiary Te that renders them able to focus on a task or concept with exacting seriousness on command like that?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Now for ENFPs: It's said that they're famed for possessing a 'silly switch', able to transition from being zany and lighthearted one moment to serious and professorial the next. Same question - which cognitive function(s) explains that dichotomy? Is it summoning their tertiary Te that renders them able to focus on a task or concept with exacting seriousness on command like that?


Probably Ne with the reigns of Fi or Ti taken off. Te definitely is task oriented.


----------



## ChrisC99 (Aug 3, 2011)

So that kind of task-oriented behavior can be Te OR Ne driven...with the only difference being in whether the focus is on ideas (Ne) or factual consistencies (Te)?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

ChrisC99 said:


> So that kind of task-oriented behavior can be Te OR Ne driven...with the only difference being in whether the focus is on ideas (Ne) or factual consistencies (Te)?


No being task oriented is typically a product of Te. Ne basically just projects your subconscious onto the outside world. Part of the issue here is getting out of the mindset that the functions are tools, like "when I am being thoughtful I'm using Te or Ti" versus "when I'm being imaginative I'm using Ne." That's not really how it works, they're tools they're mindsets. Ways of approaching the world.


----------

