Differences between ENFP and ENTP

[JAVO]

According to this list I could be almost as much ENTP than ENFP.

Finally! I've been trying to tell you all of this time!

 

[ergophobe]

ENFP's are like ENTP's with hearts that pump a vile acid.

Fixed!

I posted this elsewhere and would like input from ENFPs and ENTPs cause it's all conjecture.

We didn't seem to get full use of this thread. Needs reviving! I've been thinking about some of these. More conjecture follows:

An ENFP needs to be in contact with people and influence them in a positive way.
As an ENTP I like people but mostly I just want to study them to figure out the human condition.

Working in a profession now where I am in contact with 100-200 people every week and see a new set of hundreds every few months, at least for me, the contact and influence are important but it's in a large systemic manner too. I love when I can help an individual, of course but my goal is really to have a lasting impact on the knowledge or understanding of a group of people. The thought of having influenced these young minds by way developing analytical skills or a different understanding of the world means so much to me in comparison to influencing individuals. Influencing people's lives in ways that help them meet their own potential is the ultimate goal.

An ENFP could freely offer both sympathy and empathy but would find sympathy easier.
As an ENTP I'm uncomfortable with sympathy but can offer empathy.

Trinity - we did have the definitions right! I am so bothered by vagueness in language. Had to check up on it. Old friend: Oxford Dictionary.

Sympathy: Feelings of pity or sorrow for someone else's misfortune
Empathy: the ability to empathize, understand and share the feelings of another.

The latter really stresses this idea of feeling what the other person is, like putting yourself in their shoes. I stand by what I had said earlier. Sympathy is not difficult for me. It comes naturally in the way Fs/Nfs tune in to other people's feelings. As long as the feelings seem genuine, it's not difficult to find genuine sorrow for what they are facing. Empathy is a whole different ballgame - I don't find it easy to put myself in someone else's shoes and feel their pain. That's hard and would seem more inauthentic to me - how could I, I couldn't possibly know what it feels like except in a handful of circumstances and even then, are any two circumstances really the same? I do this more as an exercise if asked directly for advice.

An ENFP would be more excited about meeting new people.
As an ENTP I’m more excited about new ideas.

Not that excited about meeting new people really, for themselves. It's making new connections that excite me. That may differentiate ENFPs from ENTPs - the type of connection. I don't like big gatherings or parties that are loud and the conversations are surface level only. On the other hand, meeting people from diverse backgrounds and listening to them talk about what they do, what drives them is really fascinating to me. I'm quite easily entertained - talk to me about babies, car hydraulics, antique weapons, flying robots, chimp psychology...as long as the person speaks passionately and with some knowledge, I am hooked. I look at all of these, including children as people's hobbies - what they voluntarily decide to spend time on, it must be interesting for them to do so. In the process, I am always learning something new, filing away that piece of information on any of the above for later use.

The connection should be genuine and involve some emotion - that's important. I like to leave the person feeling like they have been understood and heard, which they have and feeling energized in turn by what they've shared.

An ENFP wants to feel loved and supported.
As an ENTP I want to feel respected and admired.

I'll add a caveat - feeling loved and supported is very important by someone I respect and admire. I hear a lot of ENFP women complain about not being taken seriously because we like to present a rather light and humorous image in real life. There's nothing more frustrating for me than being treated like a child - to be patronized or not treated as an equal in intellect. It's quite satisfying to be respected and acknowledged by someone I admire. Of course, there are strong emotional needs that are met by partners. A person who successfully lands an ENFP and manages to keep them engaged must possess a truly gargantuan capacity to love.

An ENFP can be quite expressive.
As an ENTP I can be less expressive.

Yes I think - especially in close relationships where strong emotions are involved.

An ENFP is more likely to adapt their emotional expressions to those they’re interacting with.
As an ENTP I’m more likely to mirror emotional expressions.

I SO have seen this happen several times to me this past summer that it's crystal. I find ENFPs actually change their emotional tenor to match the person they are speaking with. I don't do this consciously or with an aim to mainpulate - it's pretty natural. if I'm talking with someone who's very expressive and exuberant, I'll tap into that feeling at least on a basic level and express it. I'll also reflect anger/frustration/sadness - whatever the other person is feeling easily. It doesn't imply empathy, I'm not taking on their feelings (very INFP) but can sense them and tune into that frequency.

With ENTPs, it is a more obviously detached exercise of 'what would be appropriate' in this situation. They may even mirror the speaker's words or expressions but the ENTPs I know don't pass the sincerity meter regularly on this count. I can tell when it's pure Fe.

So, instead of just adding to the differences, I have noticed just off-hand some remarkable similarities. Let me know if this is way off-the-mark for you guys.

1. Both ENFPs and ENTPs are quite good at making other people feel good about themselves. We're natural charmers. However, when faced with a similar creature ourselves, we're both very suspicious of the other. I find this a lot. Hey, wait, that's my line or hmmm.... what is this person trying to get from me?
2. Both types enjoy and are fairly competent at the chase. When the tables are turned, similar surprise as above. Why is this person rushing at me at top speed? What do they see that I don't? Why are they not more discriminating? Flee!
3. For whatever goals, both types are fascinated by people. We have a good knack for figuring out what people need and in most cases, giving them whatever it is. At the same time, both types seem really uncomfortable with being subjected to the laser beam scrutiny. Very suspicious - I know I am. I'll volunteer all sorts of info but try and make me a subject of your own personal experiment and again the response is -flee!
4. For types that crave human connection, really intimate connections are actually quite difficult and painful. I find both types are quite awkward and shy at this level of contact, one on one. It's so much easier entertaining in groups. Just a thought or two based on the last few months of observation.

 

[jenocyde]

Sympathy: Feelings of pity or sorrow for someone else's misfortune
Empathy: the ability to empathize, understand and share the feelings of another.

Sorry, no. (and you can't define a word by using the word itself...) Sympathy is sharing the feelings of others, empathy is understanding the feelings - for the most basic definition.

For a stricter definition:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/632794-post2.html

sympathy and compassion are the same word. syn+pathos (greek) or con+pati or passio (latin) literally mean "to suffer with"

I'll add a caveat - feeling loved and supported is very important by someone I respect and admire. I hear a lot of ENFP women complain about not being taken seriously because we like to present a rather light and humorous image in real life. There's nothing more frustrating for me than being treated like a child - to be patronized or not treated as an equal in intellect. It's quite satisfying to be respected and acknowledged by someone I admire. Of course, there are strong emotional needs that are met by partners. A person who successfully lands an ENFP and manages to keep them engaged must possess a truly gargantuan capacity to love.

In a lot of ways, I think the ENxPs share an inability to give up on things. This is why I think ENFPs can cling to people who show them little to no love at all. They can spend their lives trying to make a person love them, trying to connect... It's not pretty. Nor is the ENTP version.

With ENTPs, it is a more obviously detached exercise of 'what would be appropriate' in this situation. They may even mirror the speaker's words or expressions but the ENTPs I know don't pass the sincerity meter regularly on this count. I can tell when it's pure Fe.

How can you possibly tell? Any chance that you could be wrong?

4. For types that crave human connection, really intimate connections are actually quite difficult and painful. I find both types are quite awkward and shy at this level of contact, one on one. It's so much easier entertaining in groups. Just a thought or two based on the last few months of observation.

I wholly agree - even for us types that do not crave human "connection".

 

[ergophobe]

Sorry, no. (and you can't define a word by using the word itself...) Sympathy is sharing the feelings of others, empathy is understanding the feelings - for the most basic definition.

Dudette, I used the dictionary, a manual one off my shelf. Quoted from it for the definitions. That's where I usually go for definitions
The expansion was mine.

For a stricter definition:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/632794-post2.html

There seems to be some real difficulty separating these two out even in the disciplinary sources you quoted.

I'll quote some wider sources too and then come back to the ones you used:
Medicine:
Empathy and the Practice of Medicine: Beyond Pills and the Scalpel
Edited by Howard M. Spiro, Curnel, Peschel and St. James

"Empathy is the feeling that persons or objects arouse in us as as projections of our feelings and thoughts. It is evident when "I and you" becomes "I am you" or atleast "I might be you". ..it is difficult to distinguish empathy from sympathy, where empathy feels "I am you" sympathy may well mean "I want to help you."

The authors go on to talk about method actors putting themselves in the position of the character, empathizing with him/her to elicit real reactions. I think this matches what the dictionary said pretty closely. The book does quote Freud and says Freud largely ignored empathy but more recent psychiatrists argue against empathy being purely neurophysiological reaction, "that the good physician can empathize without actually feeling anything."

From the sources you mentioned: The one from Anna Freud seemed interesting but I haven't found enough of her work directly and easily available where I can get more insight into what she was suggesting. The mother-child bond is a difficult one to understand this given the difficulty of putting oneself into the other's shoes for a baby.

I couldn't get access to the Hojat article you quoted but he is first author that defines empathy, at least in medicine, particularly in relation to sympathy.

Physician Empathy: Definition, Components, Measurement, and Relationship to Gender and Specialty
Mohammadreza Hojat, Ph.D., Joseph S. Gonnella, M.D., Thomas J. Nasca, M.D., Salvatore Mangione, M.D., Michael Vergare, M.D., and Michael Magee, M.D.
American Journal of Psychiatry 2002

"Although researchers agree on the positive role of empathy in interpersonal relationships (3), they are divided on the definition and, hence, the measurement of empathy (4). Similarly, research on empathy in medicine has been hampered both by a lack of conceptual clarity and lack of an operational measure of physician empathy.

Empathy has been described as a concept involving cognitive as well as affective or emotional domains (5). The cognitive domain of empathy involves the ability to understand another person’s inner experiences and feelings and a capability to view the outside world from the other person’s perspective (6). The affective domain involves the capacity to enter into or join the experiences and feelings of another person (6, 7). The affective relationships that elicit emotional response are conceptually more relevant to sympathy than to empathy (3).

Although the concepts of empathy and sympathy are often mistakenly tossed into one terminological basket, they should be distinguished in patient-care situations (8). Both concepts involve sharing, but empathetic physicians share their understanding, while sympathetic physicians share their emotions with their patients (9). The two concepts do not, however, function independently. For example, in one study (6), we found a correlation coefficient of 0.45 between the two.[/QUOTE]

So the way I understand it, from a quick reading, for the purposes of understanding empathy in physicians, empathy is seen as being able to see the world from the other person's viewpoint - sharing it. It does not, however, imply an emotional reaction or emotional component. Sympathy is feeling sorrow for the person, certainly an emotional component but does not imply seeing the world from the sufferer's eyes. Makes sense?

I think the main point of difference comes from the philosopher you quoted, Switankowski, who says the exact opposite to make this discussion so much easier.



I also found the Baron-Cohen quote really apropos from your original post:

"Dr. Baron-Cohen: It's part of empathy. Theory of mind is being able to put yourself in somebody else's shoes, being able to imagine what's going on in his or her mind. But imagining someone else's thoughts or feelings is only part of empathy. The other part is having [an appropriate] emotional reaction. The distinction is important because a psychopath might be able to figure out somebody else's thoughts quite accurately but wouldn't necessarily have an appropriate emotional response."

He uses a similar understanding as Hojat above, in seeing empathy as being able to put yourself in the person's shoes. At the same time, he actually stresses the emotional component as important. I think that's where his rewriting was focused and where the real lack of consensus is in psychology from these readings. Anyway, it's been fascinating.

What I understand from these sources - both the majority of your original ones and some of the medicine and psychology/psychiatry based ones I came across was that there is a consensus at least on the meaning of the terms - sympathy is feeling sorrow or pity for whereas empathy is putting yourself in the other person's shoes. There is however a lack of consensus on whether empathy involves feeling with or not. That's pretty fascinating. In a sense they took the dictionary meanings of these words and are examining them further for where these originate and what reactions they elicit in humans - purely cognitive, one school of thought or cognitive and emotional, a second school of thought.

Would this be better placed in the empathy versus sympathy thread?

 

[Wonkavision]

I posted this elsewhere and would like input from ENFPs and ENTPs cause it's all conjecture.

What would you say are the differences between you and the other type? What do you/don’t you relate from the points below? What other consistent points of difference do you see.

An ENFP can be very sensitive and easily discouraged by other people.
As an ENTP its damn near impossible to offend, upset or discourage me.

An ENFP needs to be in contact with people and influence them in a positive way.
As an ENTP I like people but mostly I just want to study them to figure out the human condition.

An ENFP could freely offer both sympathy and empathy but would find sympathy easier.
As an ENTP I'm uncomfortable with sympathy but can offer empathy.

An ENFP would be more excited about meeting new people.
As an ENTP I’m more excited about new ideas.

An ENFP wants to feel loved and supported.
As an ENTP I want to feel respected and admired.

An ENFP sees things as right vs wrong and ethical vs unethical.
As an ENTP I see things as correct vs incorrect and logical vs illogical.

An ENFP can be quite expressive.
As an ENTP I can be less expressive.

An ENFP is more likely to adapt their emotional expressions to those they’re interacting with.
As an ENTP I’m more likely to mirror emotional expressions.

An ENFP likes to resonate with what someone else is saying and is more likely to argue using persuasion.
As an ENTP debating is sport and I have no problems switching sides, I’m more likely use facts.

An ENFP would have strong ethics.
As an ENTP many of mine are bendable.

... then I got bored, we both do that.​

I know there's an ENTP vs ENFP thread floating around but it seems the fluff vs content ratio is about 17:1, I'm all for fluff but old fluff is boring, so y'all get a new thread.

Sounds right to me.

 

[ergophobe]

In a lot of ways, I think the ENxPs share an inability to give up on things. This is why I think ENFPs can cling to people who show them little to no love at all. They can spend their lives trying to make a person love them, trying to connect... It's not pretty. Nor is the ENTP version.

Interesting. What is the ENTP version?

The ENFP clinging to people who show them little love is a little different, from my view, than what you represented. I certainly can't imagine spending a lifetime trying to make someone love me - it seems futile. Because we can sympathize, we understand love is or isn't, it can't be created. While sad, that is one feeling or state that's remarkably easy to sympathize and even empathize with. We've all been there before, being loved but not being able to love in return.

I think ambiguity is difficult to handle for ENFPs -- we've discussed this before. In that situation, yes, guilty of holding on way past the expiration date. That's really rare though. It only happens, for me, once I make and feel that emotional connection. The depth of it may differ vastly across the participants but there was something there. Even in that case, when things don't work out or feelings aren't reciprocated to the same extent, it is not about holding on to the other person and trying to influence their view. I would not want to do that - it would really hurt my pride. It has so little to do with the other person. At my end, it's about feeling betrayed by my own intuition, something I take pride in and to have misinterpreted the situation so much (we may be naive but we hate being fooled, especially by ourselves). That sadness will remain so much longer than any hope for revival. It's also about wanting a certain kind of closure - understanding as fully as possible what happened. The lack of that will make us hang on longer to keep working on understanding what happened. How could we be so wrong about our interpretation?

In most cases, bouncing ahead and on to the next adventure is very much our style as well and I can identify with that in the majority of circumstances in the past when things didn't work out.

How can you possibly tell? Any chance that you could be wrong?

Sure, of course. I've known one of these people in particular over several years. In several cases, the spouse actually brought it up and backed up my perception. I suspect if this feels off for you or most of the ENTPs reading, the problem here may be less of misinterpretation of these particular cases and more of generalizing from a very small sample to a whole type. It may just be the friend in question, I can certainly see that.

I wholly agree - even for us types that do not crave human "connection".

Sorry - the NFness just slips through. I don't mean connection in terms of emotional. That is a particular type, but understanding the human condition the way all ENPs seem to want implies some connection, some engagement, emotional or not. Contact seems to not capture that well.

 

[jenocyde]

Dudette, I used the dictionary, a manual one off my shelf. Quoted from it for the definitions. That's where I usually go for definitions
The expansion was mine.

Yes, I know... I was basically telling you to get a new dictionary!

There seems to be some real difficulty separating these two out even in the disciplinary sources you quoted.

The only difficulty that I see is in the actual definition versus the colloquial usage, which confuses things. It is widely accepted that sympathy is a part of empathy - a natural progression. There is some understanding of what a person is going through with empathy. And you can further that emotional growth by actually feeling something on that person's behalf which is sympathy.

Now, can you truly feel what another person is feeling with accuracy or are you projecting what you would feel in that situation, or are you just feeling pity?... well, that is debatable and way out of my league.

I feel that Fe is empathetic and Fi is sympathetic, and that's how I make sense out of those functions - and that's how I separate the ENxPs initially. I can logically know what you must probably feeling be if I see you in a bad place and adjust my behavior accordingly, but you will never see me crying on your behalf which is the domain of you wonderful and strange ENFPs.

In fact, to an Fe user, Fi seems to be able to want to upstage you and your emotions. A classic example is when something really bad happens to me, I get all riled up and upset. Then I get an email from my ENFP friend telling me that she can barely sleep and is up all night because I am hurt. She feels horrible and can't focus because of what I must be going through. And I know that's her way of explaining things, but it makes me think that she expects me to feel bad for her when I am already troubled with other things. I then spend an hour trying to calm her down and make her feel better. There has got to be a better way to view this and handle this. What sort of response should I be giving to her instead?

 

[jenocyde]

Interesting. What is the ENTP version?

The omnipotent feeling... the feeling that if I just work a little harder, put in one more hour, I will have won this particular thing. I am convinced that I can never fail at anything I attempt. And truthfully, I never do fail because once I get motivated to actually do something, I don't stop until I have conquered it. And unfortunately, there are a lot of things that are not in my best interest to continue after a certain point but giving up would mean failure. So I persevere and win but am left feeling empty and drained because it's winning for the sake of winning and I hate the thing that I've won. Usually for me, it's just to prove a point to myself that I can do it.

So pushiness, but not applied to people's emotions, I guess.

 

[thinkinjazz]

My reactions:

ENFP:
ENTP:

Peepwall- um not that I know of = p

 

[ergophobe]

Yes, I know... I was basically telling you to get a new dictionary!

Should have expected that. No can do! Oxford is the best (no bias here at all).

My reading was that the dictionary was right in terms of one just identifying with the feeling while the other meant a shared view of the source of the pain. The dictionary did however, on closer reading, attribute both to empathy -- the cognitive and emotional part. Psychologists and doctors writing on empathy in relation to patients don't seem to have a consensus on this.

The only difficulty that I see is in the actual definition versus the colloquial usage, which confuses things. It is widely accepted that sympathy is a part of empathy - a natural progression. There is some understanding of what a person is going through with empathy. And you can further that emotional growth by actually feeling something on that person's behalf which is sympathy.

Now, can you truly feel what another person is feeling with accuracy or are you projecting what you would feel in that situation, or are you just feeling pity?... well, that is debatable and way out of my league.

I don't see them being a natural progression unless sympathy is a step towards full empathy. They're seen as separate even in the disciplines we just read extracts from. I think the problem here is that we're using the same word, empathy but to mean different things. You think of it as a detached form of shared experience or understanding while I think of it as both this cognitive part as well as the emotional. This determines what is a bigger step.

I feel that Fe is empathetic and Fi is sympathetic, and that's how I make sense out of those functions - and that's how I separate the ENxPs initially. I can logically know what you must probably feeling be if I see you in a bad place and adjust my behavior accordingly, but you will never see me crying on your behalf which is the domain of you wonderful and strange ENFPs.

This is what one of the authors was referring to. On the outset, it's really difficult to differentiate between empathy and sympathy. They're both forms of expressing support - is it easy from the outside to tell whether the person expressing it is feeling pity or actually sharing the view of the recipient? I don't know, hard to distinguish as you said above.

I agree with Fi being associated with shared feelings but it does not always accompany a shared worldview. For example, compassion implies feeling sorrow for someone's misfortune, no matter what it is and whether we have experienced it or not or can imagine ourselves experiencing it at some point. I can see that happening easily - lots of things elicit an emotional response personally, including some Kodak moments or TLC ads that really shouldn't have that effect That's sympathy and I think you're right in that ENTPs with Fe don't feel that sorrow?

Don't you think ENTPs and ENFPs are both capable of empathy except one does experience it more on a cognitive level whereas the other experiences it on a cognitive and emotional level. I think this is why both types are intuitive about people's needs. Both are capable of tapping into empathy. This doesn't happen a lot and is very draining. INFPs do this more. For me, the Fi-tard I am, the sympathy is easier. Because empathy requires not just feeling bad that the other person is going through something but putting myself in their shoes, much better support when I can do that but also a huge drain on resources.

In fact, to an Fe user, Fi seems to be able to want to upstage you and your emotions. A classic example is when something really bad happens to me, I get all riled up and upset. Then I get an email from my ENFP friend telling me that she can barely sleep and is up all night because I am hurt. She feels horrible and can't focus because of what I must be going through. And I know that's her way of explaining things, but it makes me think that she expects me to feel bad for her when I am already troubled with other things. I then spend an hour trying to calm her down and make her feel better. There has got to be a better way to view this and handle this.

That's terrible! Same friend who keeps sending you cards and checking in about the friendship?

What sort of response should I be giving to her instead?

She should see someone about it. That level of dependence must be draining on you both. Seriously.

I can't imagine staying up worrying about my friends well-being if they were angry or worried about a life event. Sometimes a family member's illness or struggles will keep me up but I'd never share that with the person involved because it shows dependence and that would be very unappealing to me. Also it will mostly focus on finding a solution to help them, not just worry.

1. For her, I'd say tell her as compassionately as possible that having two people worry and feel the fallout of the event doesn't help either, especially you who's going through it! You would feel much better if she could perhaps concentrate on solutions or just helping you talk through it/forget it -- whatever YOU need. Does she know how unhelpful she's being?

2. Also, Jeno, it's not your responsibility to make her feel better. One option is gracefully accepting the worry she has on your behalf as her way of showing concern and not another problem for which you need a solution. It's okay to say thanks - that's so kind and leave things there. Don't enable her - I can't imagine it's good for her either. Being the stronger one, you may have to cut her off for her own good to help her.

 

[BlueScreen]

ENTPs
---------
- seem to trust books and theories a lot more.
- have a more intelligent and grand style of silliness.
- can't play chess as well, or at least in my experience (maybe less strategic)
- are more open about their ideas (ENFPs hold back)
- are more social (or habitually social)
- converse more about the social stuff
- more technically precise

ENFPs
--------
- ask more questions about relationships.
- are more diplomatic but also subtly strong minded about what they want or don't want
- converse more about the personal
- are as interested in seeing the exceptions as the rules
- have blitz mode (look laid back most of the time, but occasionally go hyper and achieve the ridiculous) (ENTPs do it a bit also, but the ENFP one is like an alter ego level of transformation)
- talk more psychologically than technically. ie. approach, way of seeing things, etc.
- have a more rule breaking, reality twisting type of silliness.

argh, that's probably completely arbitrary .

 

[thinkinjazz]

Really? They seem equally social to me. shrug

 

[BlueScreen]

I think I meant social in the sense of organising social occasions and getting everyone together. At least the ones I know do a bit more Fe-ing than me. I tend to vanish and reappear more, or when I was younger, go with the best looking option.

 

[thinkinjazz]

yeah that sounds about right

 

[jenocyde]

I don't see them being a natural progression unless sympathy is a step towards full empathy. They're seen as separate even in the disciplines we just read extracts from. I think the problem here is that we're using the same word, empathy but to mean different things. You think of it as a detached form of shared experience or understanding while I think of it as both this cognitive part as well as the emotional. This determines what is a bigger step.

Again, I believe the difference is in the colloquial usage. I have never heard anyone speak of empathy as feeling anything in any professional context. If you choose to use the colloquial, that's fine and I'll just make a note of that. But empathy, as described in the other thread, is something doctor's must exhibit with patients - recognizing that the patient is under duress and behaving appropriately. It's what mother's do with newborns - hearing a specific cry and associating it with a certain need. Empathy is the basic understanding. Sympathy is a step toward feeling something on behalf of the person. It's the difference between stepping over a homeless person while realizing that he must be cold, and actually giving him your jacket or crying for him.

This is what one of the authors was referring to. On the outset, it's really difficult to differentiate between empathy and sympathy. They're both forms of expressing support - is it easy from the outside to tell whether the person expressing it is feeling pity or actually sharing the view of the recipient? I don't know, hard to distinguish as you said above.

I don't believe empathy has anything to do with support at all.

Don't you think ENTPs and ENFPs are both capable of empathy except one does experience it more on a cognitive level whereas the other experiences it on a cognitive and emotional level. I think this is why both types are intuitive about people's needs. Both are capable of tapping into empathy. This doesn't happen a lot and is very draining. INFPs do this more. For me, the Fi-tard I am, the sympathy is easier. Because empathy requires not just feeling bad that the other person is going through something but putting myself in their shoes, much better support when I can do that but also a huge drain on resources.

Yes, both are capable of empathy. And both are capable of sympathy. It just depends where we are at in our emotional evolution. I think you are thinking of putting yourself in someone's shoes as more than what it is. It's more like getting where the person is coming from and seeing their perspective, rather than literally looking at life through their eyes and feeling their pain.

She should see someone about it. That level of dependence must be draining on you both. Seriously.

It's funny... ENFPs always say that. I'm not saying that you behave anything like that, but it always makes me laugh how no one ever fesses up to it, writing the wayward person off as unhealthy. I find that behavior in a lot of ENFPs that I know.

1. For her, I'd say tell her as compassionately as possible that having two people worry and feel the fallout of the event doesn't help either, especially you who's going through it! You would feel much better if she could perhaps concentrate on solutions or just helping you talk through it/forget it -- whatever YOU need. Does she know how unhelpful she's being?

2. Also, Jeno, it's not your responsibility to make her feel better. One option is gracefully accepting the worry she has on your behalf as her way of showing concern and not another problem for which you need a solution. It's okay to say thanks - that's so kind and leave things there. Don't enable her - I can't imagine it's good for her either. Being the stronger one, you may have to cut her off for her own good to help her.

Ha! I don't enable her, I call her a drama queen and self centered. I can't count how many times I've said "this isn't about you". Wrong approach?

 

[ergophobe]

Again, I believe the difference is in the colloquial usage. I have never heard anyone speak of empathy as feeling anything in any professional context. If you choose to use the colloquial, that's fine and I'll just make a note of that. But empathy, as described in the other thread, is something doctor's must exhibit with patients - recognizing that the patient is under duress and behaving appropriately. It's what mother's do with newborns - hearing a specific cry and associating it with a certain need. Empathy is the basic understanding. Sympathy is a step toward feeling something on behalf of the person. It's the difference between stepping over a homeless person while realizing that he must be cold, and actually giving him your jacket or crying for him.
I don't believe empathy has anything to do with support at all.

It's not just the colloquial usage though. They're related. That's a very narrow interpretation and doesn't follow from the sources you used and the ones I read and quoted above. It was an attempt to understand and apply what the authors were saying above, including the Hojat article quoted above - I don't think that came through.

Empathy is not just responding to the person's needs - that is simple care. Mothers too, recognizing that a baby cries and responding appropriately is simply providing care. The authors are concerned about empathy because they are interested in how caring for the person affects the quality of care doctors provide. "Defined as a personal quality in the uncritical understanding of a patient's inner experiences and feelings, empathy is the essence of a meaningful patient-doctor relationship" (Hojat et al. Medical Education 2002). That sounds a little more than just a detached understanding of the person's condition and providing appropriate care.

I agree with you that sympathy is necessarily about feeling. Empathy isn't so clearly defined across these disciplines -- some people do see it (psychologists and some medical doctors) as necessarily involving feeling whereas others (medical doctors including Hojat) see it as more of a cognitive reaction.

From the examples you gave above, the reaction or state of the observor (empathy or sympathy) and their action (stepping over or giving them a jacket) are actually separate things. While crying for someone else's pain seems to be connected to sympathy (feeling for), it may also be empathy if it is seen as having an emotional component. The difference is the perspective from which you view the person - outside or from their eyes. In either case, you could decide to stop and help the homeless person or step over them. Neither sympathy nor empathy guarantees a certain response. Even with the more detached interpretation you use of empathy, just a cognitive reaction, having seen the homeless person's perspective, you may be more likely to help them than just feeling sorry for them (sympathy). I don't think we can judge the psychological state from the following action alone.

Yes, both are capable of empathy. And both are capable of sympathy. It just depends where we are at in our emotional evolution. I think you are thinking of putting yourself in someone's shoes as more than what it is. It's more like getting where the person is coming from and seeing their perspective, rather than literally looking at life through their eyes and feeling their pain.

How is it different to see someone's perspective on life and where they're coming from and seeing life through their eyes? Literally, they mean the same thing. The difference is only in how much you feel for them - as seen in the disciplines above, there seems to be a lack of consensus on whether the feeling is necessary in empathy.

It's funny... ENFPs always say that. I'm not saying that you behave anything like that, but it always makes me laugh how no one ever fesses up to it, writing the wayward person off as unhealthy. I find that behavior in a lot of ENFPs that I know.

Honestly, I don't see people around me, ENFP or not, do that. It's bad form in a friendship, don't you think? Instead of providing support, you end up needing it? Regardless of type, isn't this unhealthy?

It's not about labeling each type example as a wayward person but in essence questioning whether we can fairly extrapolate from the example to a type. In this case, it seems very self-centered. That's not even real sympathy. We are at least known for that as a type. It seems to contradict that basic essence - how can one feel for someone else - deeply, compassionately and yet not prioritize their pain one's own sympathetic pangs? Seems rather counter-intuitive to the characteristics we associate with the type.

Ha! I don't enable her, I call her a drama queen and self centered. I can't count how many times I've said "this isn't about you". Wrong approach?

Well, usually, calling someone a drama queen and self-centered doesn't work out productively for me but hey, each one to her own.

That's funny - I have a 'drama queen' magnet from a friend as a joke. I assumed it was a humorous gift, now I'm beginning to worry

I would find it difficult to turn to a friend like that in times of need - even for comfort for fear of burdening them and for increasing my own load. I was referring to your comment earlier where you talked about feeling like you had to talk her off a ledge. That's unfortunate. Have you tried telling her what you may like in the case of a future crisis? Like what you need when you are upset.

I told my sibling this recently since we have such different needs in crisis. I like to talk through things with someone and do whatever has to be done myself (that whole pesky independence thing) whereas he's much more of a doer to show he cares. It's helped, I think.

 

[jenocyde]

It's not just the colloquial usage though. They're related. That's a very narrow interpretation and doesn't follow from the sources you used and the ones I read and quoted above. It was an attempt to understand and apply what the authors were saying above, including the Hojat article quoted above - I don't think that came through.

Empathy is not just responding to the person's needs - that is simple care. Mothers too, recognizing that a baby cries and responding appropriately is simply providing care. The authors are concerned about empathy because they are interested in how caring for the person affects the quality of care doctors provide. "Defined as a personal quality in the uncritical understanding of a patient's inner experiences and feelings, empathy is the essence of a meaningful patient-doctor relationship" (Hojat et al. Medical Education 2002). That sounds a little more than just a detached understanding of the person's condition and providing appropriate care.

I know that it's a narrow interpretation, which is why I said it was the basic definition many times. I think it's clear that you are misunderstanding not only what I wrote, but the sources I quoted. I didn't say that empathy was about responding to needs, I am saying that it is about recognizing that someone has needs to begin with. Trying to understand where someone is coming from. Your quote above completely illustrates what I just said. I don't know where the confusion is coming from.

From the examples you gave above, the reaction or state of the observor (empathy or sympathy) and their action (stepping over or giving them a jacket) are actually separate things. While crying for someone else's pain seems to be connected to sympathy (feeling for), it may also be empathy if it is seen as having an emotional component. The difference is the perspective from which you view the person - outside or from their eyes. In either case, you could decide to stop and help the homeless person or step over them. Neither sympathy nor empathy guarantees a certain response. Even with the more detached interpretation you use of empathy, just a cognitive reaction, having seen the homeless person's perspective, you may be more likely to help them than just feeling sorry for them (sympathy). I don't think we can judge the psychological state from the following action alone.

Again, empathy is not about the physical response - I am illustrating that the emotional component actually makes empathy into sympathy. That's the point. Feeling bad WITH someone is different than realizing that someone would feel bad in a particular situation (and not wanting to be the cause of that pain is something also associated with empathy). Empathy is basic and is learned in childhood. Most sociopaths, especially those with NPD, never learned empathy. It is the consensus that sympathy cannot exist without empathy because it is a natural progression. When a child learns that s/he is a separate entity from its surroundings and that other people have feelings too, this is when empathy is learned. "You don't pull mommy's hair because it hurts her when you do that. Don't you remember that time when your brother pulled your hair?" Sympathy comes after empathy in the emotional evolution. Not only do you realize that others have feelings, but you also tune into those feelings yourself. You are capable of feeling bad on mommy's behalf. Sympathy separates tragedy from comedy. I'm not going to go back and forth any more about this, it's really not important.

Honestly, I don't see people around me, ENFP or not, do that. It's bad form in a friendship, don't you think? Instead of providing support, you end up needing it? Regardless of type, isn't this unhealthy?

It's not about labeling each type example as a wayward person but in essence questioning whether we can fairly extrapolate from the example to a type. In this case, it seems very self-centered. That's not even real sympathy. We are at least known for that as a type. It seems to contradict that basic essence - how can one feel for someone else - deeply, compassionately and yet not prioritize their pain one's own sympathetic pangs? Seems rather counter-intuitive to the characteristics we associate with the type.

What I am saying is that you may not realize that this is how ENFPs can be perceived. In crying on my behalf, I see that as self centered. I think by her telling me how much she's suffering on my behalf, she feels that she is telling me that she is supporting me and we are somehow close or something. I see it as annoying and uncomfortable.

 

[ergophobe]

Jeno - there's no misunderstanding of the sources. The problem is the very lack of agreement across psychologists on how empathy is defined - that is the only consensus across fields.

Perhaps one of the reasons why we can see the concepts so differently is that I'm concentrating more on neuro and social psychology and you're looking more at child psychology that define the terms quite differently. Our basic disagreement is on the definition of the terms themselves and whether sympathy is achieved further in someone's emotional development than empathy and how it affects actions (the homeless example above). I found this neat table put together by neuropsychologists that classifies these terms along several dimensions including actions (helping resulting from these states). Preston and De Waal, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2002. Quite cool!

The discussion is over semantics. That, you rightfully pointed out, is not so important. Regardless, I've actually really enjoyed reading on this subject and learning a little about an area I've always wondered about, how empathy affects a person's actions. Particularly in the realm of doctor-patient care. It's pretty fascinating. We can absolutely agree to disagree on the definitions and I'll note your usage of the term, as well, for future conversations.

What I am saying is that you may not realize that this is how ENFPs can be perceived. In crying on my behalf, I see that as self centered. I think by her telling me how much she's suffering on my behalf, she feels that she is telling me that she is supporting me and we are somehow close or something. I see it as annoying and uncomfortable.

We both can certainly agree that the behavior you described is self centered and discomforting. Whether it applies more generally to ENFPs or not, I'll leave that to others who may or may not have similar experiences with ENFPs and MBTI psychologists to decide. It just struck me, I don't have to speak for all ENFPs and their contacts.

I have a grandmother who does this and she is allowed to call and tell me how she stayed up all night worrying because I was driving cross-country. Other than that, I can't see how this would be okay for anyone who's not going through the event/worry. It's simply not supportive. You could tell her she was supportive, an earlier suggestion simply because you are very kind and clearly care about the her well-being (however we may refer to that psychological state ) We don't disagree on the perceptions of her behavior and I'm sorry you endure it regularly.

I also just realized I actually meant to say in an earlier post that I can't imagine doing this for a friend (staying up all night worrying) but ended up saying can instead. I'm going to blame the lateness of the hour and edit that post.

 

[ergophobe]

The omnipotent feeling... the feeling that if I just work a little harder, put in one more hour, I will have won this particular thing. I am convinced that I can never fail at anything I attempt. And truthfully, I never do fail because once I get motivated to actually do something, I don't stop until I have conquered it. And unfortunately, there are a lot of things that are not in my best interest to continue after a certain point but giving up would mean failure. So I persevere and win but am left feeling empty and drained because it's winning for the sake of winning and I hate the thing that I've won. Usually for me, it's just to prove a point to myself that I can do it.

So pushiness, but not applied to people's emotions, I guess.

Meant to respond to this earlier. Yes - I can identify with this both professionally and personally. It certainly works in both areas once motivation has been achieved. I am even more motivated to make a success of something where interpersonal relationships are concerned, as difficult as they may be. Pushiness implies insisting the other person work on it too when they're no longer interested in working on something. That would be counter-productive. Interpersonal relationships simply can't be tackled when one party isn't willing. The motivation has to be there at both sides.

Having said that, I think our disappointment is that likened to ENTPs and debate. I've heard ENTP friends online and offline say they're disappointed when people don't want to continue debating a subject that they're interested in. It takes two. Similarly, ENFPs are likely disappointed when people are not motivated to continue working on an interpersonal relationship, whatever the relationship may be (friend, family, partner). It's different types of engagement but the perseverence reflected is similar. In either case, one person can't make a difference to the outcome. Pushiness in the emotional realm would actually be quite contrary to an ENFP's perception of people and their prerogative to make individual choices.

 

[Tamske]

Correct me if I'm wrong...

ENTPs have a good intuition about everything BUT people.