She does sound like she has a stronger Se, and possibly an ESFP. Or perhaps, just strong E (since I believe that I/E can have varying degrees). Still, I belive an ISFP does not necessarily have to be like that. Though I do not know enough of them.My best friend in high school was an ISFP, so I'm in a somewhat privileged position to underline the differences. She was someone who I obviously related to on some levels or else we wouldn't have been friends: we were both creatures of emotion, for instance, and we had many of the same concerns in life. We had our marked differences, though, and the relevant ones touch on her use of Se.
To start with, she had what I would call an inner diva. In her imagination, she saw herself as something like a pop star in the making; she thought she was cool, and this sense of stylishness was very important to her identity. It was not for mine. To be sure, I had my own sense of style--who doesn't?--but mine did not involve trying new hairstyles, wearing unique clothing, or plastering things with stickers. My sense of style revolved around a unique outlook on life that transcended the physical in every way.
The other thing that set us apart was that, unlike me, she had a certain restlessness about her that it's hard for me to pin down. Part of this was a certain physicality that I've always lacked; she seemed to be on the go, wandering almost, and she was always interested in some physical activity, whether it was painting or playing sports or getting in an altercation with someone. This, and her overall there-and-now-ness, was something that always struck me as quaint, almost amusing. I think she must have felt the same way about my strange, almost alien take on everything.
I wouldn't call myself terribly artistic, so this is another thing that sets me apart from ISFPs. The only form of art I do is write, and my writing is easily some of the most abstract, intuitive stuff I've seen in print. When it comes to physical details, I struggle; I write in abstractions more than I do in details, and what details I do manage always take on a dreamy, otherworldly quality.
Extraverted sensing is something I only recently learned to do, and even now I only use it on a shallow epistemological level. I relate to literally nothing else about the process except that I sometimes struggle not to go on binges or lose control of myself when angry. So negative is this other side of Se, that I would say I struggle to keep the process chained down almost as much as I do Ti.Epistemology is the study of knowledge. So you're saying that you only demand concrete facts when dealing with that subject?Secondly, I've been extremely intuitive for as long as I can remember, whereas I've only accepted Se as my philosophical foundation in recent years.
Of course, I don't know the whole context of what you are saying, but then maybe it is playing a sort of trickster role (or more accurately, acting out a trickster complex) by childishly demanding hard facts? With me; it's usually pointing out current facts to beat someone in an argument or get them off my back.
Or maybe it's just undifferentiated. But it's just the way you are articulating it that makes it sound like it is differentiated.
I also love looking at richly colored LED lights. (Was just out in Times Square last night). But I know that is not Se preference, because I can never just look at things for what they are. It always has to be tied to some concept or something (like how all the colors are made from the three primaries; and the symmetries involved). I first saw this when reading Berens' books, and there was an exercise telling you to just look at a picture and not try to analyze or find meaning, etc.
But you're professing INFP now, and that would be the same as ISFP in being dominant with ethical judgment (Fi). If ego's main goal is the outer world, then you are by definition, an extravert.This doesn't sound like me at all. Number one, my main goal is always to achieve something in the outer world; ethical judgments are only a means to that end.
However, the extraverted functions are generally more noticeable then introverted ones, so perhaps that's why you would see it like that.
I don't know who they are (probably heard of a couple of the names), so I can't say.So you're telling me that you believe Husserl, Heidegger, and Sartre were SPs? What I've described is the phenomenological reduction, which was core to all three of those philosopher's methods.
And a lot of the stuff you crossed out sounds like it might be somewhat stereotypical, plus you have words in there like "many", allowing that not all are like this.As you said, profiles are filled with stereotypes, so I'm somewhat reluctant to even answer this question. I'll do it anyway, just to illustrate. The profile below is taken from MyPersonality, and I've crossed out everything that contrasts with me:
I trust that my point is slightly clearer now.
Yeah, that's what this is sounding like now. So you would still be iNtuitive, yet Se would be a less mature function, but still nevertheless ego-compatible and would come up as you say. You would basically "aspire" to it (as Berens puts it), and this would manifest in your epistemological context."This is how things appear to be, now let's proceed from here." That simple attitude, which I often neglect to exercise, encapsulates almost the whole of my experience with Se. This is why I can say I'm bad at using the process.
I use plenty of Ne, but I don't take it quite as seriously as the typical NP. I like to be playfully imaginative, I enjoy being random, and I can easily sense patterns which clue me into the deeper meaning of things. I don't tend to use Ne as an arbiter of truth, though, and I'm not one to actively collect data and link it together. My connection-making, at least in its serious mode, is rooted inwardly, in the form of introverted intuition.
It's about what is true from my point of view, not what is true based on a bunch of misleading external evidence. For this and other reasons, I would much sooner call myself an INFJ or even an INTJ than an ISFP.
But then, with INFJ you're losing Fi, in favor of Fe. With INTJ, you're going back to Thinking preference again of course).