• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The alternative/real function orders

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
How so?

Ne and Se have literally zero overlap. They cannot perceive even one of the same things.

Ne and Ni CAN have overlap. As long as the premises in the internal standard match up with reality in the slightest bit, the exact same perceptual data is completely possible.

You're missing the point--whether or not they perceive the same things is subservient to the attitudes and methodology by which they make these perceptions.

Ne and Se have a great deal of overlap. They perform similar tasks in different arenas; both prefer to learn through a purely experiential approach and reject the ideas of planning ahead, feeling that "jumping in and getting your hands dirty" is the only way to really learn anything.

Ne and Se are both focused on the external environment and require validation from the environment in order to make sense of their perceptions.

Ni and Si share none of these properties and are focused merely on one's own internal perceptions of the environment, be it the literal or theoretical one. Neither Pi function relies upon the external world for information and both are totally closed to external validation/invalidation of their ideas, and neither is willing to leap into any new situation unprepared because neither knows how to respond to its environment without a period of preparation and internal consideration.

Once again, it's the direction of the function and its Perception/Judgment quality that matters, not which type of Perception or which type of Judgment.

Why do you think ENTPs are so much more similar to ESTPs than to ENTJs? They share Pe+Ji; ENTJs are a totally different animal with Te/Ni. The way they prioritize everything is completely different, and yet they share Thinking and iNtuition with ENTPs.

The more important difference is that they extrovert the Judgment function and introvert Perception--no P type does this and it makes a dramatic difference to their internal motivations.


Once again, you prove to me you have no consistency of thought.

Do not make me find your old post where you agreed with me,
that predetermined function orders are bullshit.
Now you sound like the poster boy for MBTI.
Make up your mind.

I happen to agree with the OP.
One of the first warning bells that went off for me was this ridiculous notion of symmetry.
To know people, is to know complexity.
The thought of this symmetrical paint-by-numbers approach is more than I can bear.

For the 10,000th time,

I do not use MBTI, nor do I believe that there do not exist people who have functional orders outside of its 16 molds.

I simply believe that such people lack skills vital to successful interaction and typically suffer from personality imbalance because having E, I, J, and P functions at the ready makes one most adaptable and most able to handle the greatest number of situations with the best strategy for each.

I trust that I don't need to explain what happens when one lacks a strong E/I/P/J function.

People with two introverted functions can often improve their results in life by working to catch up the extroverted function that Jungian psychology predicts "should" be the auxiliary. It should be intuitively obvious why this is, and why it's also true if you rely on two extroverted (or two perceiving, or two judging) functions--you are ill-equipped to handle situations in life which require the opposite type of ability.

By the way, cut the crap about no consistency of thought. I'm really getting pretty tired of you Jumping to this ridiculous conclusion before you've bothered taking the time to grasp my ideas. Quit whining.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
You're missing the point--whether or not they perceive the same things is subservient to the attitudes and methodology by which they make these perceptions.

Ne and Se have a great deal of overlap. They perform similar tasks in different arenas; both prefer to learn through a purely experiential approach and reject the ideas of planning ahead, feeling that "jumping in and getting your hands dirty" is the only way to really learn anything.

Ne and Se are both focused on the external environment and require validation from the environment in order to make sense of their perceptions.

Ni and Si share none of these properties and are focused merely on one's own internal perceptions of the environment, be it the literal or theoretical one. Neither Pi function relies upon the external world for information and both are totally closed to external validation/invalidation of their ideas, and neither is willing to leap into any new situation unprepared because neither knows how to respond to its environment without a period of preparation and internal consideration.

Once again, it's the direction of the function and its Perception/Judgment quality that matters, not which type of Perception or which type of Judgment.

Why do you think ENTPs are so much more similar to ESTPs than to ENTJs? They share Pe+Ji; ENTJs are a totally different animal with Te/Ni. The way they prioritize everything is completely different, and yet they share Thinking and iNtuition with ENTPs.

The more important difference is that they extrovert the Judgment function and introvert Perception--no P type does this and it makes a dramatic difference to their internal motivations.

It depends which dimension of similarity you're talking about. I'm more interested in cognition than attitude...you seem more interested in attitude.

Whatever.

I think ENTP and ENTJ talk about more similar kinds of things than ENTPs and ESTPs. But yeah, ESTPs and ENTPs have the same sort of attitude about the environment. Meh.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
ESTPs and ENTPs also have the same sort of attitudes about internal consistency. They won't go along with anything that doesn't seem internally logically consistent on paper. ENTJs, on the other hand, couldn't really care less about internal consistency as long as it works. They won't fudge details or accept "close enough" when it comes to working with the outer world, just as ETPs won't do that when working with internal logic.

The fact that they talk about similar things is not very significant. That's just a surface behavior; it doesn't really say much about the internal motivation, which is really the basis of typology.

ESTPs and ENTPs are both far more likely to act on impulse and just fill in their gaps in understanding as they go--Pe is good at that.

You won't often catch an ENTJ unprepared, though. They even have the same dominant function as ESTJs, to whom they are far more similar than they are to ENTPs.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
simulatedworld said:
The only ones I've said imitate each other are shadow functions
That's what I was referring to with my last sentence, so there isn't much about my post, if anything, that you disagree with.

simulatedworld said:
People who think they directly exercise shadow functions are basing it on erroneous understanding of what each function is.
I'm not sure what you mean by "directly exercise," but I can consciously use any of the eight functions, and I would be surprised if that isn't true for every healthy human being. There are functions that a person will use more frequently and with greater skill, of course, but someone with an Se shadow doesn't black out or fall under possession when they go jogging.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
ESTPs and ENTPs also have the same sort of attitudes about internal consistency.

The fact that they talk about similar things is not very significant. That's just a surface behavior; it doesn't really say much about the internal motivation, which is really the basis of typology.

ESTPs and ENTPs are both far more likely to act on impulse and just fill in their gaps in understanding as they go--Pe is good at that.

You won't often catch an ENTJ unprepared, though. They even have the same dominant function as ESTJs, to whom they are far more similar than they are to ENTPs.

I'm curious...did you even read my statement about how this depends on which dimensions of similarity you're talking about?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I'm curious...did you even read my statement about how this depends on which dimensions of similarity you're talking about?

Yes, and it's my contention that my preferred dimension of similarity is quite a bit more significant to psychological type than yours.


Nunki said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "directly exercise," but I can consciously use any of the eight functions, and I would be surprised if that isn't true for every healthy human being. There are functions that a person will use more frequently and with greater skill, of course, but someone with an Se shadow doesn't black out or fall under possession when they go jogging.

Were there a form of perception that you could not consciously use, how would you know it if you automatically assume you can use all of them consciously?

As for your last sentence here--obviously. NPs use Si (not Se) to directly perceive their environment and Ne to intuit how to respond quickly and instinctively to it. Ne is just not as good at responding to the physical environment as it is at responding to theoretical or abstract environments.

You don't actually need Se to see or directly experience what's going on around you. Si will do that too; it just stores away these impressions for later instead of responding to them immediately in an externalized manner.

Notice how Ne doms often respond to their physical environments in inappropriate ways? They are using Ne to intuit answers to Si's sense impressions, and they are not very good at it--most Ne users are pretty clumsy and unaware of their surroundings in comparison to Se users.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Yes, and it's my contention that my preferred dimension of similarity is quite a bit more significant to psychological type than yours.

Depends on the type of inference you like to make with the typological framework.

MBTI is descriptive only. I like to describe what people are interested in more than how they prefer to structure their time. I'm more interested in the middle two letters than the first and last. If you want to focus more on the first and last, that's fine. But don't speak to me as if I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm trying to say we're both right; you're trying to say you're right and I'm wrong. That's a much more narrow view, and it isn't great for discussion, unless your goal of discussion is to prove to everyone how right you are.

Probably according to the MBTI, but not according to me.

Mk. Well you may as well not use the same words then, since it's pretty confusing.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Depends on the type of inference you like to make with the typological framework.

MBTI is descriptive only. I like to describe what people are interested in more than how they prefer to structure their time. I'm more interested in the middle two letters than the first and last. If you want to focus more on the first and last, that's fine. But don't speak to me as if I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm trying to say we're both right; you're trying to say you're right and I'm wrong. That's a much more narrow view, and it isn't great for discussion, unless your goal of discussion is to prove to everyone how right you are.

The way they structure time is, again, just one minor surface behavior.

The point here is the fundamental attitudes by which information is derived and provided to the judging function for use.

ENTJs and ENTPs simply don't value the same things or the same approaches at all.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you're focusing on similarities that are less significant because people with similar functional directions tend to display much more similar basic value systems in terms of life philosophy and approach to learning than those who share the same letters in the middle two spots.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Were there a form of perception that you could not consciously use, how would you know it if you automatically assume you can use all of them consciously?
I don't assume; I know. The reason I know is because the subconscious only exists as an idea that helps to explain our behavior. When you start to treat it as a real thing (and yet, paradoxically, a thing that doesn't exist) you end up saying things that don't make a whole of sense; things that become caught up in an ever more tangled web of logic, while they lose sight of reality altogether.

simulatedworld said:
As for your last sentence here--obviously. NPs use Si (not Se) to directly perceive their environment and Ne to intuit how to respond quickly and instinctively to it. Ne is just not as good at responding to the physical environment as it is at responding to theoretical or abstract environments.

You don't actually need Se to see or directly experience what's going on around you. Si will do that too; it just stores away these impressions for later instead of responding to them immediately in an externalized manner.

Notice how Ne doms often respond to their physical environments in inappropriate ways? They are trying using Ne to intuit answers to Si's sense impressions, and they are not very good at it--most Ne users are pretty clumsy and unaware of their surroundings in comparison to Se users.
We're obviously operating on different definitions of Sensing. Si as I understand it is cut off from the external world and focused only on stored impressions.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
The way they structure time is, again, just one minor surface behavior.

The point here is the fundamental attitudes by which information is derived and provided to the judging function for use.

ENTJs and ENTPs simply don't value the same things or the same approaches at all.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, just that you're focusing on similarities that are less significant because people with similar functional directions tend to display much more similar basic value systems in terms of life philosophy and approach to learning than those who share the same letters in the middle two spots.

okay, then I'll say you are wrong.

:)
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
okay, then I'll say you are wrong.

:)

Well that's not very good for discussion then, is it?


I don't assume; I know. The reason I know is because the subconscious only exists as an idea that helps to explain our behavior. When you start to treat it as a real thing (and yet, paradoxically, a thing that doesn't exist) you end up saying things that don't make a whole of sense; things that become caught up in an ever more tangled web of logic, while they lose sight of reality altogether.

Umm that doesn't really follow. Just because you arbitrarily feel that you're able to use all possible forms of perception consciously doesn't mean you actually can. That's called circular logic.


We're obviously operating on different definitions of Sensing. Si as I understand it is cut off from the external world and focused only on stored impressions.

Ne can temporarily behave like Se by actively focusing its outward perception on its physical surroundings instead of its theoretical ones...but only for brief periods of time. The Ne user still never actively places Se as a high priority; when quick adaptability to the outer world (Pe) is required, the only available Pe function is Ne. With time and training you can make your Ne act like Se more effectively...you could refer to this as "using Se", I suppose; either way it's the same thing happening and the way we label it isn't all that important as long as we understand the underlying value system behind it.
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Well that's not very good for discussion then, is it?

Nope.

:devil:

Umm that doesn't really follow. Just because you arbitrarily feel that you're able to use all possible forms of perception consciously doesn't mean you actually can. That's called circular logic.

All logic is circular. And yes I can provide an argument for that if you make me.

Ne can temporarily behave like Se by actively focusing its outward perception on its physical surroundings instead of its theoretical ones...but only for brief periods of time.

No. If it's focusing on physical, concrete things, it's S.

The Ne user still never actively places Se as a high priority; when quick adaptability to the outer world (Pe) is required, the only available Pe function is Ne.

How would you justify this claim?

With time and training you can make your Ne act like Se more effectively...you could refer to this as "using Se", I suppose; either way it's the same thing happening and the way we label it isn't all that important as long as we understand the underlying value system behind it.

I honestly think you don't get it.

The functions are all defined such that there is no overlap (at least N, S, T, and F). Any conscious judgment that is not T is F and vice versa. Any unconscious perception that is not S is N and vice versa.

The annoying part is that any Xe and Xi can overlap; the only way I can think of to resolve this is to think of MBTI as only having four functions, with a dimension of introversion to extroversion for each. This way you can not only account for any possible eight function order, you can also deduce exactly which of the four functions are being used for each instance of cognition.

If you don't make the distinctions I mentioned above (or any other distinctions that achieve the same thing), you'll end up hopelessly confused, with no deterministic way of figuring out which function accounts for which mode of thought.

I've done lots of work on this stuff for the last few years if you're interested in my conclusions. I have links in my signature to an explanation of the functions and a calculator I wrote that maps function usage to MBTI type.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Umm that doesn't really follow. Just because you arbitrarily feel that you're able to use all possible forms of perception consciously doesn't mean you actually can. That's called circular logic.
There's nothing wrong with circular logic, if you ask me, and even if there were, I haven't really given you an adequate idea of where I'm coming from. I suppose one thing I would mention is that where you choose to focus your attention is just that: a choice. This means there's an element of conscious activity, even though you don't decide what you'll find upon making that choice.

simulatedworld said:
Ne can temporarily behave like Se by actively focusing its outward perception on its physical surroundings instead of its theoretical ones...but only for brief periods of time. The Ne user still never actively places Se as a high priority; when quick adaptability to the outer world (Pe) is required, the only available Pe function is Ne. With time and training you can make your Ne act like Se more effectively...you could refer to this as "using Se", I suppose; either way it's the same thing happening and the way we label it isn't all that important as long as we understand the underlying value system behind it.
I'm not seeing how this would work. Could you explain in greater detail?
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
All logic is circular. And yes I can provide an argument for that if you make me.

Well, now I'm just curious! Knock yourself out.



No. If it's focusing on physical, concrete things, it's S. How would you justify this claim?

I don't agree with that limited definition of Sensing. I've used Ne to read people's body language before, but only because I've noticed these patterns and associated them across different contexts. I use Ne to perform a task that is most often associated with Se, but I'm not doing it in the same way natural Se users are. This, to me, constitutes shadow Se--at the end of the day whether or not it's really "true Se" doesn't even seem that relevant.

I think smart Se users are able to perform a lot of traditional "Ne tasks" really well and vice versa, but only through training the other Pe function to point it elsewhere.

If it's external information, wouldn't it have to come from an extroverted function? If Ne can't perceive anything about the physical or concrete environment, and ENTPs can use Se for that, why would they ever bother using Si at all? Why would it even be be part of their functional order?




I honestly think you don't get it.

The functions are all defined such that there is no overlap (at least N, S, T, and F). Any conscious judgment that is not T is F and vice versa. Any unconscious perception that is not S is N and vice versa.

Again, limited definitions based on outdated theory.

The annoying part is that any Xe and Xi can overlap; the only way I can think of to resolve this is to think of MBTI as only having four functions, with a dimension of introversion to extroversion for each. This way you can not only account for any possible eight function order, you can also deduce exactly which of the four functions are being used for each instance of cognition.

Sure, Xe and Xi can overlap, just not to the degree that the two Pe functions (or the same for the other groups) do.

If Ne and Ni could never overlap, we wouldn't call them both N functions--but if Ne and Se didn't also overlap, we wouldn't call them both E functions. (For that matter, there'd be no point at all to the terms Je, Ji, Pe, and Pi. Why bother making the distinction between Perceiving and Judging types of functions if this isn't even significant?) There's lots of overlapping everywhere.

If you don't make the distinctions I mentioned above (or any other distinctions that achieve the same thing), you'll end up hopelessly confused, with no deterministic way of figuring out which function accounts for which mode of thought.

Unfortunately I'm afraid searching for "deterministic" methods on a topic so inherently abstract and unquantifiable is, in itself, a wild goose chase.

Suffice it to say there's a reason there's so much disagreement about the types of various people, even from those with a lot of experience.

I've done lots of work on this stuff for the last few years if you're interested in my conclusions. I have links in my signature to an explanation of the functions and a calculator I wrote that maps function usage to MBTI type.

Yes, I am interested. Please continue.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
There's nothing wrong with circular logic, if you ask me, and even if there were, I haven't really given you an adequate idea of where I'm coming from. I suppose one thing I would mention is that where you choose to focus your attention is just that: a choice. This means there's an element of conscious activity, even though you don't decide what you'll find upon making that choice.

No, but I did operate under the "middle two letters are most significant" assumption for a long time and found that the resultant classifications provide far less precision when describing similarities between the value systems of different types.

EDIT: It just occurred to me that we are essentially in agreement about the processes; we're just labeling them differently. If I think an NP making concrete externalized perceptions is doing it via Ne and you think he's using Se to do it, we actually agree in principle, just not on how to label the behavior. There's probably no need to continue this.

Nunki said:
I'm not seeing how this would work. Could you explain in greater detail?

There are four basic types of tasks: those requiring absorption of information from the external environment (Pe), those requiring making a decision in the external environment (Je), those requiring absorption of information and our personal impressions of it internally (Pi), and those requiring internal decision-making that occurs independently of any external influence (Ji.)

Each person has four "natural" functions so that each of these situations can be handled properly.

Note that J types seem to perform better on tasks requiring Je and Pi, because those are typically the best two functions for J types. The opposite is true for Ps with Pe and Ji tasks.

I would suggest that the whole "concrete perception only" vs. "abstract perception only" is a false dichotomy, and that each Pe function is capable of both concrete and abstract perceptions. Ne is better at the abstract ones and Se is better at the concrete ones, but if Ne could not perceive anything concrete (instead magically switching to Se, as you suggest), Ne users would have absolutely no reason to ever use Si for anything--they would already have a super introverted function (Ti/Fi) and a super Sensing function (Se)--so why would there ever be any reason for Si use at all?

I would suggest that at times when the Ne user needs Pi, the only available function is Si, which is why we sometimes use inferior Si despite the fact that it obviously sucks. When we need to use introverted perception, we don't really have another option because our iNtuition naturally occurs on the outside.

I have seen Si doms make intuitive assumptions that appear to be Ni-motivated, but in fact are only manifestations of Si because they relate directly to the physical environment and one's previously stored impressions of it--even though the Si user is "intuiting" something new by considering its sensory impressions!

In short, you cannot use a Pi function to perform a Pe task, so this leads me to the conclusion that the conventional definitions of Sensing vs. iNtuition are flawed, limited and based too much on arbitrary surface characteristics, not enough on true inner motivations.
 

Polaris

AKA Nunki
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,529
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
451
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I read your post, and I still don't see how making external connections (Ne) can be used to mimic an immediate, physical response to the environment. The only real relationship I see between these two is that one may prompt the other.

But whatever. The most that could possibly come of this is for one of us to convince the other to change his mind, and that would be utterly useless. It would only make as much difference as to convince a layman that the earth is flat: a change of perception, with no effect.

No, but I did operate under the "middle two letters are most significant" assumption for a long time and found that the resultant classifications provide far less precision when describing similarities between the value systems of different types.
This was meant for Evan . . . Right?
 

redacted

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2007
Messages
4,223
Well, now I'm just curious! Knock yourself out.

The premises of a deductive argument entail the truth of a set of statements. In other words, the logical content of the combination of premises is a set S. The conclusion of a deductive argument, then, is limited to S. It can either be a subset or the entire set. No matter what, then, the conclusion is either restating the logical content of the premises, or just restating a part of that logical content. Basically, you can always rewrite the premises to include the conclusion itself.

So you can always take the premises and play around with some logic rules and rewrite them as the conclusion itself.

A->B
A
Therefore
B

can be rewritten as

A->B
A
B
Therefore
B

can be rewritten as

blah blah
B
Therefore
B

If B wasn't a part of the premises, it couldn't be logically valid to conclude B.

An analogy would be something like
6-2
therefore
4

you can rewrite 6-2 as 4, so you're basically saying
4
therefore
4

I've used Ne to read people's body language before, but only because I've noticed these patterns and associated them across different contexts.

No, you used S to see the body language, then you used N to synthesize what you saw and come to a possible interpretation of what it means.

I think smart Se users are able to perform a lot of traditional "Ne tasks" really well and vice versa, but only through training the other Pe function to point it elsewhere.

People just trade between S and N multiple times per second. The combination of the two create things like perceiving the meaning of body language.

S by itself would just give you images with no meaning or symbols attached. N by itself would have nothing to work with.

If it's external information, wouldn't it have to come from an extroverted function? If Ne can't perceive anything about the physical or concrete environment, and ENTPs can use Se for that, why would they ever bother using Si at all? Why would it even be be part of their functional order?

External information is taken in through Sensing, always. Intuition attaches possible meanings to that information. By the time the information bubbles up to consciousness, it's an amalgamation of sense data (S) and metaphorical meaning (N).

Extroverted judging functions don't take in any external information at all. They just make conclusions based on the data they have, with a bias towards including premises that are relevant to the environment. Introverted judging functions are biased towards using premises that are relevant to the current thought process, regardless of environmental relevance.

The difference between Se and Si is that Se tries to pick out sensory data about as many different pieces of the environment as possible, whereas Si tries to pick out sensory data that's specifically relevant to the current thought process.

Ne and Ni are different analogously to Se and Si -- Ne attaches metaphorical meaning to all the information it gets. Ni attaches more meaning to things that are relevant to the current thought process, potentially missing out on assigning meaning to all data.

Extroversion is like breadth, Introversion is like depth. Pe looks to everything, Pi looks deeply at a few things. Je factors in everything, Ji factors in more stuff about fewer things.


I've explained a lot of this in my function definitions thread.
 

The_Liquid_Laser

Glowy Goopy Goodness
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
3,376
MBTI Type
ENTP
Why do you think ENTPs are so much more similar to ESTPs than to ENTJs? They share Pe+Ji; ENTJs are a totally different animal with Te/Ni. The way they prioritize everything is completely different, and yet they share Thinking and iNtuition with ENTPs.

I've always had lots in common with the ENTJ's I've encountered, even the ENTJ's that rub me the wrong way. They rub me the wrong way because I'm interested in what they are doing, but I don't agree with their method. With ESTP's we have little to talk about and I don't really care about what they're into. In some sense I probably have more in common with ENTJ's than any other type. It really just depends on what sense you are talking about, although the other two contenders are ENFP and INTP. I don't really have anything in common with ESTP except for in really superficial ways that I don't even care about.

Also to add another $.02 I've been following the back and forth between you and Evan and I essentially agree with everything Evan is saying. His view is congruent with the original Jungian viewpoint.
 
Top