ENFX Hypocrisy

[RDF]

ptgatsby and FineLine, you really don't recognize this as-yet-not-properly-named problem area for ENFXs - not even as translated by me?

In my earlier post I recognized how NTs might take a dim view of ENFXs who use values, feeling, and social norms as organizational tools. But I also explained that I personally see ENFXs accomplishing that task openly, honestly and toward good ends. IOW, personally I think the OP puts far too negative a spin on ENFXs by labeling them hypocrites.

If it will make you feel any better, I'm willing to acknowledge that every personality type has its nickle-and-dime rip-offs. None of us keeps 100 percent true to our most positive aspects. There's a lot of leeway for individual characteristics to shade over into negative characteristics when exhibited in real life, with real-life stresses and dramas.

But FWIW, I'm probably older than most posters and I routinely see how all the personality types work themselves out later in life. Young people within any personality type tend to still be getting their act together. Older people, by contrast, will have smoothed off the rough edges and gotten their routine down pat.

And ENFJs, in fact, tend to be pretty delightful people as they get older (IMO, of course). As I mentioned earlier, I have a somewhat more mixed opinion of ENFPs. But I count a couple of them as friends as well, and I find it easy enough to discount their quirks and enjoy their ample positive qualities.

FL

 

[ptgatsby]

I can testify that fickleness is one ENTP problem area that Blackwater has left behind.

Maybe... are we talking about a specific ENFx, or are we generalising millions of people under these classifications - is it any fairer, or less correct, to say that ENTPs are fickle people? It is either a typical (and probable) condition in a gigantic amount of people, which makes it obvious, or we are forering into the belief by broadening the interpretation until it fits.

Is it any more or less accurate than associating project drifting/enthusiasm fickleness in ENTPs to the people drifting/lack of confrontation/getting along enthusiasm from ENFPs?

ptgatsby and FineLine, you really don't recognize this as-yet-not-properly-named problem area for ENFXs - not even as translated by me?

As described, no, I don't. My view is that;

- I have never seen this as a significant failing in ENFs, although I have only worked with a couple and know a couple outside of that.

- I have never seen this brought up outside of those I do know (or within), which differs from a lot of other typical traits.

- The definition seems to be a reinterpretation of events that could flow to other conclusions.

- I also don't think it can be generalised to ENFs, since the J/P trait is behaviourally important, and in particular, the -NFP traits seem dominant in what is being talked about (--Fp bending and lack of assertion in the example, and a -N-P trait in regards to the fleeting behaviour), not a type in particular. Because there is no specific type being measured, the events are easily reinterpreted to shift between the J/P divide as a way to hide conflicting data - ie: justify belief rather than conclude from data.

 

[Economica]

I just had to log in again to write this:

In my earlier post I recognized how NTs might take a dim view of ENFXs who use values, feeling, and social norms as organizational tools. But I also explained that I personally see ENFXs accomplishing that task openly, honestly and toward good ends. IOW, personally I think the OP puts far too negative a spin on ENFXs by labeling them hypocrites.

(...)

And ENFJs, in fact, tend to be pretty delightful people as they get older (IMO, of course). As I mentioned earlier, I have a somewhat more mixed opinion of ENFPs. But I count a couple of them as friends as well, and I find it easy enough to discount their quirks and enjoy their ample positive qualities.

FineLine, I know Blackwater likes ENFXs very much, as do I. He simply finds that practically all the ones he knows suffer from this problem, and in the spirit of my INXJ thread (where the majority did, in fact, recognize closed-minded certitude as a ubiquitous problem area for INTJs at least) he brought it up here to explore it. If no one else recognizes it, that's perfectly legitimate, but... There is some T/F miscommunication here that I won't attempt to put my finger on now. (Jennifer, you are sorely missed.)

---

Okay, now I really mean it: Goodnight!

 

[Varelse]

From what I've seen, some of it could just be the ENFX making decisions or promises in a certain moment based on an emotion, and then changing their statements later, when their emotions change. They may feel what they say when they say it, but their feelings can be a bit fickle of a basis for their word.

 

[proteanmix]

Today, when I was coming back from lunch my coworker and I bumped into some other co-worker's. We chatted a for a less than a minute when a male coworker whom nobody likes stopped and chatted with us.

This guy is slimy and slick, very charming and funny but it's obvious that he shouldn't be trusted. He's dated several women at my job at once. He made a joke and I was the only that laughed. I didn't think it was funny I just laughed because my other coworker's were giving him the cold shoulder. I don't blame them, he's not a nice person in my opinion.

As soon as it was over, I was thinking to myself, why did you laugh? It wasn't funny. When I think about most of my interactions with this guy, I know I give a different impression than what I feel. I don't like him, have never liked him, but he would never guess it, or rather I'd go to great lengths to hide my true feelings for him.

Honestly I don't care whether he likes me or not, he doesn't take add one minute to my day and I don't have to work with him directly. It's just this thing I do with people, it's hard for me to show disgust to them, even though I don't like them. I don't know if this is what you were asking for, but it's truth about myself.

 

[RDF]

[...] in the spirit of my INXJ thread (where the majority did, in fact, recognize closed-minded certitude as a ubiquitous problem area for INTJs at least) [...]

I probably should have read the OP and the thread before chiming in. I don't see certitude as a "problem area" in a healthy INXJ. To me, it's just a "quirk." It's worth chatting about INTJ certitude about as a "marker" for INXJs, and it's fun to speculate about its origins. But it's hardly a "problem" in my experience.

I have an INTJ coworker, and we have some competing interests in our respective jobs. Due to his certitude in the rectitude of his own opinion, I can't count on him to automatically recognize and look out for my interests. He doesn't pick things up through osmosis like some other types might. But that just means I have to sit down and make my case. And it only takes 10 words with him. INTJs are so freaking quick to pick up the gist. It's great. If I've got a decent reason at all for what I want, he'll go along with it. The main thing is not to bore him with a long, drawn-out explanation.

There is some T/F miscommunication here that I won't attempt to put my finger on now.

I tend to go with the holistic overview. Sure, what the hell, it's fun to extract some particular quirk and gossip about it and badmouth it. But if I get the sense that the personality type as a whole is being trashed, then I back up a few steps and picture a coworker or a friend of that type and see the person as a whole.

INTJs aren't defined by their certitude. INTJs are magnificent creatures, fascinating and brilliant; any quibbles about their "certitude" are dwarfed by the attraction of that high-octane brain of theirs. On the other hand, trashing how ENFXs interact with people cuts a little deeper, because it goes to the core of their particular personality type and who they are. In many ways, their interactions with the people around them define who they are. It doesn't seem right to argue that the very basis of their interactions with the world is somehow illegitimate or routinely leads to illegitimate results. My ENFJ and ENFP acquaintances are sharp, interesting, honest people. They work hard to improve the world around themselves. They function differently from me, and sometimes I have to adjust my own attitude a bit to accommodate them, but I don't see their interactions with me as illegitimate in any way.

Okay, now I really mean it: Goodnight!

Me too. Gotta go pick up the car at the shop. Good discussion!

FL

 

[Economica]

This will be quicker and more condensed than I'd like since I'm off to work (and since I actually have to work today ).

I tend to go with the holistic overview. Sure, what the hell, it's fun to extract some particular quirk and gossip about it and badmouth it. But if I get the sense that the personality type as a whole is being trashed, then I back up a few steps and picture a coworker or a friend of that type and see the person as a whole.

What is it that makes you get that sense? I ask not in order to challenge you, but in order to learn.

I assure you that Blackwater and I very much share your bottom-line appreciation of ENFXs (and INTJs, though I hate to admit it here ). Multiple friendships is how we got our empirical data in the first place. It is not our intention to point fingers or to indirectly flaunt our own NT toughness, merely to explore this problem area in order to understand and perhaps contribute to the personal development of ENFXs we are close to.

But perhaps the issue is not so much that you read malicious intent into the thread(s) as that you do not recognize that types can have problem areas that they should work on (as opposed to mere quirks)...?

I probably should have read the OP and the thread before chiming in. I don't see certitude as a "problem area" in a healthy INXJ. To me, it's just a "quirk." It's worth chatting about INTJ certitude about as a "marker" for INXJs, and it's fun to speculate about its origins. But it's hardly a "problem" in my experience.

Here we differ. In my experience, CC can lead to bitter unhappiness for an INTJ. Also, CC can be highly disruptive on a message board like this one. (Just ask MacGuffin. ) Both are good reasons not to gloss over the behavior.

I leave it to Blackwater to fill in the negative consequences of the ENFX behavior he has identified.

 

[RDF]

I tend to go with the holistic overview. Sure, what the hell, it's fun to extract some particular quirk and gossip about it and badmouth it. But if I get the sense that the personality type as a whole is being trashed, then I back up a few steps and picture a coworker or a friend of that type and see the person as a whole.

What is it that makes you get that sense? I ask not in order to challenge you, but in order to learn.

The answer to your question was in the next paragraph of that message. I'll quote it again; I edited my response after first posting the message, and you might have missed the final version.

In message 23 you said Blackwater created this thread about ENFXs "in the spirit of" your own INXJ thread. I wanted to point out the difference that I see in the two threads and the two "problem areas" of the relative types, to explain a possible source of the "T/F miscommunication" that you mentioned:

[...] But if I get the sense that the personality type as a whole is being trashed, then I back up a few steps and picture a coworker or a friend of that type and see the person as a whole.

INTJs aren't defined by their certitude. INTJs are magnificent creatures, fascinating and brilliant; any quibbles about their "certitude" are dwarfed by the attraction of that high-octane brain of theirs. On the other hand, trashing how ENFXs interact with people cuts a little deeper, because it goes to the core of their particular personality type and who they are. In many ways, their interactions with the people around them define who they are. It doesn't seem right to argue that the very basis of their interactions with the world is somehow illegitimate or routinely leads to illegitimate results.[...]

IOW, a thread such as this one about ENFXs gets at a key issue about the whole MBTI system: Do all personality types have merit (in their own way), or can it be said that some personality types are objectively good while others are objectively bad or fatally flawed in terms of their contribution to the world?

This thread seems to indicate that ENFX interactions with the world are routinely illegitimate; that makes me step back a bit and think hard. I don't mind someone raising the question of ENFX "hypocrisy"; I'm just explaining why I can't be budged from my position on this issue: In real life, I honestly don't feel that my interactions with ENFPs and ENFJs to be routinely tainted with "hypocrisy" on their part.

Oh well, that's my last word on this matter. I have a busy day and a busy (rest of the) week ahead. In any case, ENFPs and ENFJs can defend themselves if they wish. I just thought I would contribute my own observations on the subject of this thread, as an impartial observer.

FL

 

[Lookin4theBestNU]

Thank-you FineLine.

 

[Blackwater]

On the other hand, trashing how ENFXs interact with people cuts a little deeper, because it goes to the core of their particular personality type and who they are. In many ways, their interactions with the people around them define who they are. It doesn't seem right to argue that the very basis of their interactions with the world is somehow illegitimate or routinely leads to illegitimate results.

So you aknowledge that they go with the feelings of the moment rather than their a priori oppinions as described in the OP but you oppose the rather negative labels I assign to this behavior. That's fine by me as long you confirm the empirical occurance

Perhaps you are more of a fatalist than I because I wouldn't go as far as calling this behavior the very basis of their interactions with the world; in fact, if that was the case I'm not sure I'd let ENFxs get as close to me as I do. Instead I would say that it represents a character liability that ENFXs need to overcome - just as ENTPs need to overcome one-upmanship and learn the difference between the Devil's Advocate and the Socratic Gadfly amongst other things.

Another real life example, this time from an ENFJ:

There this ENFJ who makes occasional appearances in my life. Very accomodating and charming, artful, (once) a psysical knockout, medium to high intelligence. She has such an easy time tuning into what people want from her that she's constantly commiting herself to promises which she can't/won't follow through. Specifically, she promised me, and my closest friends that she'd dump her guilt-manipulating boyfriend, only to stay with him for 4 years. Everybody knew it was wrong, yet (my) rational observations failed to convince anyone of her insufficiency, probably in part because of her social charms.

Another ENFJ, a good friend:

Has written a book on mordern philosophy (kuhn, popper etc.). I know his oppinions on the subject through and through and yet I have often seen him relinquish a standpoint in favor of accomodation, rather than sticking with his superior arguments, he'll end up saying the opposite of what he thinks in the present situation (although he won't actually change opinion accordinly). No one is served by this kind of behavior, really.

 

[RDF]

So you aknowledge that they go with the feelings of the moment rather than their a priori oppinions as described in the OP but you oppose the rather negative labels I assign to this behavior. That's fine by me as long you confirm the empirical occurance

Sure. Why not. And your position is fine with me as long as we do the following for every other person and personality type as well:

1) Apply "rather negative" labels to their behavior,
2) Nitpick their every action and characterize the personality type by the occasional shortcomings or petty rip-offs of any individuals of that type,
3) And hold them to my standard of how they should ideally act in an ideal world. And beat up on them when they fall short of that standard.

Perhaps you are more of a fatalist than I because I wouldn't go as far as calling this behavior the very basis of their interactions with the world; in fact, if that was the case I'm not sure I'd let ENFxs get as close to me as I do. Instead I would say that it represents a character liability that ENFXs need to overcome - just as ENTPs need to overcome one-upmanship and learn the difference between the Devil's Advocate and the Socratic Gadfly amongst other things.

I get your point that it's all about labels.

I understand that ENTPs get kind of a bad rap on this message board. I gave Substitute a pretty good heaping of bad labels myself in a past thread (although in fairness to myself it was in a thread where he specifically asked how others saw ENTPs, and it was after he had taken a few sideswipes at INFPs along the way).

But if you're going to put a morally negative label like "hypocrisy" on ENFX interactions, then it behooves you to put the appropriate disclaimers and qualifiers in the OP. (For example, "If ENTPs can be trashed as gadflies, then can ENFPs be trashed as hypocrites?" etc.) IOW, put the labels in the appropriate context, or choose less negative labels. Otherwise you'll get feedback like mine.

FL (really taking off this time.)

 

[Blackwater]

There's no need to be heated about this, all types have their own pathology.

Jung on Fe:

"All thinking that might disturb feeling is suppressed. It is considered possible for objects to become so important that constantly changing feeling states result in accordance with the changes in surroundings. The basic ego remains the same and is constantly at odds with these changing states. The thinking function, primarily unconscious in the extraverted feeling type, is infantile, archaic, and negative; when contradictory feeling states occur, the most negative thoughts released from the unconscious are directed toward the most valued objects of feeling."

 

[Athenian200]

There's no need to be heated about this, all types have their own pathology.

Jung on Fe:

"All thinking that might disturb feeling is suppressed. It is considered possible for objects to become so important that constantly changing feeling states result in accordance with the changes in surroundings. The basic ego remains the same and is constantly at odds with these changing states. The thinking function, primarily unconscious in the extraverted feeling type, is infantile, archaic, and negative; when contradictory feeling states occur, the most negative thoughts released from the unconscious are directed toward the most valued objects of feeling."

It is pathological from your perspective because you use Ti, not Fe.

Let's look at Ti for a moment, it has just as many negative aspects:

Oriented to the subjective factor is experience which guides and determines judgment, the introverted thinker is observed to be more interested in producing new views than new facts. With a tendency to force facts into the shape of his private images, the introvert can fall prey to mystical thinking. Kant is offered as an example of the normal introverted thinking type, strongly influenced by ideas having a subjective foundation. This type is found to be often impractical not only neglecting the object, but defending against it unnecessarily. However lucid the inner structure of his thought, the introvert does not clearly understand how to communicate it to the world of reality. In personal relations he is described as taciturn, domineering and inconsiderate, appreciated only by his intimates. With more intense members of this type, convictions become more rigid, and they shut off outside influences completely. Up to a point, their thinking is positive and synthetic, producing ideas that reflect the primordial images; but when totally divorced from objective experience, the ideas become mythological and unintelligible to others.

 

[Blackwater]

No it is pathological ipso facto for an extrovert to socially prostitude himself in such a manner, thereby disassociating the ego from the external situation that he so naturally focuses on.

I'm not saying that Ti is better at all. All types have their own pathology.

 

[Economica]

There's no need to be heated about this

All right, Blackwater, you're on your own.

 

[Blackwater]

Hmm, and here I was thinking how ironic it was that an ENTP was complaining about fickleness

not necessarily; you could say that I am one of the types susceptible to that kind of behavior myself but that I strove to overcome it and did

---

Perhaps I should apologize; I originally opened this thread offering observations that I hoped would be challenged or to have the perspective therein contradicted or expanded. Instead, what seems to have happened is that people mistook the lack of OP-empathy as another prelude to T/F trench warfare. Too bad, really; I personally prefer the clinical approach

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I'd say such hypocrisy is very common among unhealthy ENFs, though tends to be rare among those who of them who are sound.

Unhealthy ENFJs get absorbed by the external standards of the community and do all they can to meet them, in most cases it means pleasing those around them. Hence, if they have made a plea to one group, and later on it turns out that if they could win the favor of a larger community or more influential people, or whatever it takes to become more liked by breaking the previous promise they'd do it.

So hence, the reason why they are fickle is because they do not have an internal standard to go by and the standards they aling with change.

As for the ENFP, unlike the ENFJ, they dont have a clear-cut external standard to go by. So they can count on no more than fleeting hunches to make themselves feel good, and hence they must depend on the immediate approval of those receiving them for validation. So they'd be going on and on trying to please everyone they come across, as their need for approval is very high. Yet, unlike the ENFJs, as the ENFPs dont have a solid standard to go by, need for the approval to be renewed frequently as again, unlike the ENFJs, they can not keep focus on the people they've pleased in the past. As for the ENFP being fickle, they never really know what they want other than receiving emotional affirmation all the time. Since they need to be the center of attention (Ne-performer aspect, and Fi bent outwards) and lack judgment (no external judgment and Fi inaccessible) they need consistent admiration for others to uplift their self-image and will go at great length to obtain it. Perhaps even as far as going against many of their deeply held personal values. Moreover, they are also likely to be driven by desires as at this point they are ruled by their hunches and do not exercise proper judgment to truly figure out what they want. In situations like these, the ENFP would truly be out of control and it would be obvious to everyone around but the ENFP him/herself. And a salient reason why they cant put limitations on themselves is because they've disregarded reality in favor of their heart-warming fantasies and no matter what happens, they will discard concrete facts and logic so they can befool themselves into thinking that the world is exactly like the way they want for it to be.



Once you shake some sense into them (with great difficulty because they likely will be too fickle to stay focused with you, even throughout the length of that one discussion, or likely wont be able to take anything seriously enough to even begin talking about that..or be too afraid of negative feelings/confrontations..as they need constant emotional reassurance..otherwise their identity would just wither away as they have no solid foundation to stand on), they will be sorry...very sorry..and you'd have to be downright heartless to not believe them..and then again..folks..its not that the enfp deceived you about their motives..they really were sorry..but they're just too fickle for that to mean anything at all..their feelings vanquished right the next day..and damn it..they do it again and you're back to square one trying to confront them...and they are so coarse and unreflective that they hardly understand what they did..and when they get 5 seconds of down time to think..it finally hits them..and what do you know..they again try to lighten up the conversation and sweet-talk their way out of it..anything..anything..just to make sure you dont show disappointment in them and they can carry on doing whatever their left foot commands...regardless of what effect it has on you and others they supposedly care for..right after they got done telling you how much you mean to them and how sincere they are about all of their values..



So the case of a neurotic ENFP will seem even more insincere than that of the ENFJ despite that the latter is more externally focused and has a stronger feeling preferrence.

As for healthy cases of both types, they generally tend to be sincere, yet very often are mistaken for being ingenuine because they are just too smooth for their own good. Especially the ENFP. And the ENFJ for trying too hard to please everyone, most would think they are just too good to be true. Though what vitiates the image of both is the light-hearted approach to life and an external focus, both of which tend to obfuscate the depth of feeling balanced individuals of these two types likely experience.

 

[Blackwater]

bluewing you win the prize for best best post. you are spot on in synch with my observations and - i will concede - describe the occurance in depth whereas I do so in broader/ more general terms

the ENFP would truly be out of control and it would be obvious to everyone around but the ENFP him/herself.

without exaggering I can testify that most people actually do not. perhaps we are blessed with a special NTP perspective on this, but I positively know from personal experience that neigther INTJs, nor INFJs whose oppions I normally respect have been able to connect with me when I offered these observations. one even reacted by calling me out-of-touch with reality, rather than adressing the problem at all.

I almost completely agree with your assertions regarding the motivation of the ENFJ and ENFP respectively which is also why I said that the "accusations" put forwards in my posts were more unfair to the ENFP than the ENFJ but philosophically it is the problem of Dogville over again; the ENFP being the dog.

the MBTI litterature already touches on many of the points you present but is generally to positive and ficke (sic!) in its describtions, after all - they have a product to sell.

one point really struck me personally:

Once you shake some sense into them (with great difficulty because they likely will be too fickle to stay focused with you, even throughout the length of that one discussion, or likely wont be able to take anything seriously enough to even begin talking about that..or be too afraid of negative feelings/confrontations..as they need constant emotional reassurance..otherwise their identity would just wither away as they have no solid foundation to stand on), they will be sorry...very sorry..and you'd have to be downright heartless to not believe them..and then again..folks..its not that the enfp deceived you about their motives..they really were sorry..but they're just too fickle for that to mean anything at all..their feelings vanquished right the next day..and damn it..they do it again and you're back to square one trying to confront them...

because that's exactly what happned between me and one of my ENFP friends. I told him the same thing 5-10 times over only now is he beginning to understand. I (an E - mind you) felt like the most patient person in the world, and at one point I even toyed with the idea of overreacting aggressively in order to shake some sense into his skull. but he is thankfully beginning to come around, actually "getting it".

 

[Economica]

bluewing you win the prize for best best post.

I concur.

BlueWing, may I ask to what extent you base your posts on personal experience and to what extent they are founded in theorizing alone? I seem to recall that you rate crazily high on attachment-style avoidance, but a post like this one just seems too realistic for pure armchair deduction.

 

[Shimpei]

My ex who's ENFJ admitted to me once that he's a big hypocrite. I had to agree with him. He had been like this (deceiving others and himself in the church) for years.