[ENFJ] ENFJ personality type descritpion

[nozflubber]

"All emotion is relative to a chosen frame of reference. That is, you can only understand the feelings of others by inferring what you would have to be feeling in order to act that way."

Mirror neurons and their implications easily support this. If emotion is basically subjective/inferred empathy then it explains a lot of the core differences between type, and can also explain extreme things like psychopathic behavior.

 

[proteanmix]

...Fi only puts you in touch with what you feel yourself, and thus causes you to use yourself as a frame of reference, no matter how distraught or calm you may happen to be (which will interfere with your ability to understand the feelings of others). Fe tries to "calibrate" itself to an average frame of reference inferred from the feelings of those around them, thus correcting for some of the deviations produced by their own mood and allowing them to maintain more equilibrium and consistency in their assessments of the moods of others. It also allows them to be more consistent in their responses to the moods of others, rather than behaving in a way that is totally based on their own moods, desires, and whims.

I don't argue that Fi is deeper, more "authentic" (although the value of that is debatable) and more aware of itself, but Fe is honestly a lot more useful in interacting with others, and assessing their current feelings in a manner that is useful to the person assessing them, because it is accurate enough, and less likely to overwhelm them. It is also useful in giving people a standard code to use in communication, simplifying it greatly. If we all come to a consensus about what, say, a smile should mean, then we'll all interpret it correctly when it is expressed. BlueWing even admitted that having consistent standards in mathematics such as using decimal and standard arithmetic notation is desirable, so why would this be undesirable in terms of dealing with emotions? It's the same principle, establishing standards to ensure clarity in communication.

Yes, that is very well stated! And that's the one of problems I have when people discuss Fe and it's seeming lack of depth. People have tendency to vie Harmony vs. Authenticity against each other as if they're incompatible or you can't act in line with your own principles and still harmonize with others. Then BW sets up these false dichotomies like individualism vs. communalism (did he compare Fe to the communism? did he say that prejudice arises from Fe? I don't if I read that correctly) The word conforming and conformity have negative connotations on this forum. And most members are American for whom individualism is like Manifest Destiny or something. I'm not contrary just to be contrary or rebel just because it strikes my fancy and if a standard is reasonable and just then I don't have a problem abiding by it. You sound like you want to get rid of traffic lights and stop signs because they impede radical introversion. There are external standards that have merit and integrity and ones that don't. And some people's introverted judgment isn't in the best of shape either and some crazy ideology can emerge. It's like dissing pop culture just because it's popular. It's not all good, but it's not all bad either. More common, more base, more unnecessary. Also BW makes it sound like there isn't an original thought in a Fe-dominants head unless somebody opened up their skull and planted it there in a bed of sweet smelling tulips and makes Fe into didactic mindless conformity. You know, "all my friends are doing it."

And LLNF brings up a good point. Fe seems to be a function that everybody thinks they understand because the products of Fe are ubiquitous, pliable, and easy to manipulate (holidays, birthdays, anniversaries, funerals, weddings, fashion, etc.) but rarely does anyone every stop to ask how an EFJ experiences their own Fe. And once again I want to reiterate that he failed to emphasize any positive aspects of Fe like community welfare or interpersonal relationships.

I suppose this is because at best most forum participants have Fe as their auxiliary which still isn't the same type of Fe that emerges from a Fe dominant. And I'm limiting my comments to what I see on the forum, because this isn't even an issue in my real life. One good thing about extroverted judgment is it's excellent at gaging your relationship to the object and in this case it's other people. I know when someone doesn't like me and I know when someone does. I'm good at knowing how people feel about me so I'm rarely blindsided by anyone's feelings or attitude towards me because I already fairly accurate hunch they were there. And for the most part I'm a well liked and pleasant person to be around. And most (not all of course) of the EFJs I encounter are also pleasant people so once again, my experiences don't align with other people.

I've aimed some of my weak mind bullets at the situation and I realize I probably influence my satisfying interactions with people so I'm more likely to have them. For example, recently a group of coworkers in another department came up to my cube we had a little conversation and they went on their merry way. One of my direct coworker's came to me after hearing the conversation and told me they never speak to her. I know I've been very friendly to these people even though they work on a different floor. At the very least I smile whenever I see one of them. My behavior towards them puts me in a better relationship towards them because I've shown myself to be a friendly person and they probably feel more at ease in conversating with me. Is that my Fe? Probably so. Someone else seeing this interaction may view it as fake and contrived that the only reason why I'm friendly is because society tells me too and if not I stomp on their toes and sneak white out into their coffee. I find pleasure in those type of interactions as superficial as they appear to others.

To BW's credit I would like to say that I think even though it seems capricious, he has explained that Fe is more flexible than what most people believe. I think Fe-doms are generally very realistic about people and their behavior and are therefore quite actually quite tolerant. I encounter way more EFJs (mostly ESFJs because I don't know any ENFJs) that forgiving to the point of being pushovers. I also know plenty of ESFJs who work themselves into exhaustion taking care of others and their willingness to work with and around people, or should I say take people's bullshit. He's also right about the reading body language and why I'm flying completely blind on the internet because I can't see how a person is reacting and another person can't see me. Most communication is non-verbal anyways and I'm more likely to trust non-verbal communication more than what a person says. You'll basically know where you stand with an ENFJ because you won't get any of that passive-aggressive, indirect communication, much to your chagrin.

He also gives a good description of how an ENFJ can improve by cultivating Ni, but really any person that hasn't cultivated at least their auxiliary function is wack as hell. Also (and LLNF touched on this) I don't have a problem with his description of the Fe-meld, which once again is called clingy or co-dependent or some such nonsense. If I thought someone thought me expressing my affections towards them was clingy, you won't have to worry about that anymore. As warmly as I felt towards you before, you'll get absolute zero from me after. Setting up proper boundaries are also a problem that I've been getting at and not worrying and caring about people more than what they seem to care about themselves. I detest apathy and the "It's all about me" mentality.

I may slightly agree to these:

Even though he may have little or no understanding on how to solve the most basic problems of mathematics or physics, and the nuance of such intellectual enterprises are bound to leave him baffled and intimidated, he knows every last nuance in regards to how attain power in his community and how to win the approbation of the multitude.

I can't add worth a damn but get me in front of the masses and it's Showtime at the Apollo!

Very often superstitious beliefs concerning the nature of logic and impersonal occurrences are harbored and since the Introverted Thinking does not require much grounding in the external world, the Extroverted Feeler is free to concoct all sorts of absurd laws concerning the nature of reasoning.

There is a thin line between insanity and genius.



And sciski: I've written some posts about how I experience Fe. You may want to run a search with ENFJ in the title of the thread.

 

[sciski]

Thank you to both littlelostnf and proteanmix for your posts! They do reinforce my view of the expression of Fe and its motivations - and my view was actually rather rosy already.

I've never experienced manipulation at the hands of an ExFJ - just persuasion, and the benefits of listening to their persuasion. The choice of action, however, was always mine - so I wouldn't call it manipulation, as that implies no choice.

I do think that BW's definition wasn't all that off base - isn't Fe defined as the obeying of external values over your own? However, it's also very clear that not many actual people would be mindless slaves and puppets to forces outside. I read BW's profile as more of an exercise in theoretical unbalanced Fe dominance than an ENFJ profile.

At the risk of incurring some wrath, I would suggest that it's actually the ExFJ's Fi (by definition) that stops an ExFJ from becoming a puppet to the outside, just as it's an IxFP's Fe (though some have not learned the skills all that well, possibly because of Fi's influence) that stops them from becoming a self-obsessed asshole who simply goes around judging everyone and frowning. This comes purely from the definition of each Feeling function, rather than any perceived inequality in each function's virtue - which seems to be a sticking point here (that BW is biased in favour of Fi)?

I think where he caused offense was in labelling his analysis as an "ENFJ profile", thus applying it as a definition for all ENFJs, rather than calling it a study in the behaviour/thinking pattern of unbalanced DomFe. Actually, I would quite like to see that - an analysis of what a person with an overwhelming dominant function would behave or think like... theoretically. Thus instead of seeing it as an attempt at The definition of our type, we would be more able to see it as an archetype, and draw differences/similarities/lessons/offense that way.

I agree that it does not seem as balanced as the introvert profiles I've seen so far. Then again, this could be the result of the functional definitions themselves.

Introverted functions, in their sphere of influence, tend only to hurt the bearer of such function. Extroverted functions, particularly the judging ones, tend to want to influence others. So naturally, you would see more complaints about an extroverted judger cropping up, compared with an introverted perceiver. Generally, complaints about introverted perceivers are about a person's lack, rather than excess... so lack of smiling, lack of involvement, lack of initiative - very annoying things, but their effects on other people tend to be secondary - ignorable if you ignore the person or exclude them. Extroverted judgers are harder to ignore because they seek to act on others. Maybe that's the source of the greater volume of complaints against DomFes and DomTes.

Please note I am fully aware that I'm talking about the outside shows and effects of these behaviours. I do not doubt that Fe (and Te) are truly well meant... as are all the functions, in good people.

Then again, you also see a greater volume of approbation, like, love, passion, inspired feelings, camaraderie, shows of efficiency and gratitude for extraverted judgers (here the introverts kind of vanish into the background- again, defined by a lack of impact, though of course we still do have an impact)... so I would say it all balances out.

It does seem to depend on the recipient's level of understanding of the motivation of each person. Once I understood the selfless motivation behind DomFes, I realised that their behaviour was not contrived, but was instead motivated because they actually... liked.. being socially acceptable and (ugh) pleasant! *horrified*

rarely does anyone every stop to ask how an EFJ experiences their own Fe.

Yay, I did! It's not the usual thing that comes up in conversation though. "Soooooo, how's your Fe hangin'?" *feels sudden urge to waggle eyebrows*

 

[proteanmix]

Some posts moved here.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Athenian, as I understand your argument that Fe is more accurate than Fi because it is objective in the regard that it relates to the object or the external world directly, not like Fi that interposes subjective interpretation between itself and the world.


However, objective in this sense is different from objective in the regard of standing devoid of your prejudices. To use the two interchangeably means to succumb to the fallacy of equivocation.


There are two ways to gain knowledge, either through your own reflection, or by having someone else instruct you. The former is akin to Fi methodology, the latter to Fe.

Which is more objective with respect to the second definition? Fe is at the whims of whatever pernicious external influence may come by, and has difficulty extricating itself from that as the external influence is the fuel Fe runs on. Fi certainly easily falls victim to internal influences, yet since it is always in process of thought, it has the proper tools to combat the influences should they be pernicious.

Sriv, check my disclaimers and the personality/type distinction. Fe is but an unconscious tendency towards applying the human element to external entities. All other statements I have made concenring that notion are examples of how Fe may or may not manifest through personality. This is all but means to the end of evincing how Fe works in our unconscious tendencies. I was trying to make a point that as a matter of psychology, Fe derives its own identity from the outside. Most of the comments stated in reply to my profile were irrelevant as they deal with personality and not type. Such notions are best examined in the realm of social sciences such as psychology or sociology.

 

[Athenian200]

Athenian, as I understand your argument that Fe is more accurate than Fi because it is objective in the regard that it relates to the object or the external world directly, not like Fi that interposes subjective interpretation between itself and the world.


However, objective in this sense is different from objective in the regard of standing devoid of your prejudices. To use the two interchangeably means to succumb to the fallacy of equivocation.

I think what I meant was that the prejudice of subjective interpretation is worse than that created by being directly related to the object. Because it's often more ridiculous and irrationally certain of it's own correctness, and certain that it's standards of corruption and perfection apply to everyone absolutely. It cannot be modified when it is clear to others that it is flawed because of it's own internalized value and self-certainty. It doesn't seem to accept that morality only exists within the context of a particular situation, and humanity in general, and that morality and emotion is not a separate entity that exists in and of itself, but exists on top of an impersonal world as an effect emanating from it. This understanding would seem to be a flaw.

There are two ways to gain knowledge, either through your own reflection, or by having someone else instruct you. The former is akin to Fi methodology, the latter to Fe.

But F has nothing to do with knowledge. Focusing on one's own feelings doesn't help you understand those of other people, and the only useful application of feeling is to help others through their problems and experience the feeling of empathy and connection. What good is it to brood about feelings alone? They'll never really make sense or resolve themselves that way.

Which is more objective with respect to the second definition? Fe is at the whims of whatever pernicious external influence may come by, and has difficulty extricating itself from that as the external influence is the fuel Fe runs on. Fi certainly easily falls victim to internal influences, yet since it is always in process of thought, it has the proper tools to combat the influences should they be pernicious.

Why is the external influence assumed to have a greater potential to be pernicious than the internal one? In my experience, leaving people alone with their own feelings just causes them to brood and intensify, possibly exaggerating them and making it into a large mess. And Fi refuses to be given a helping hand from outside, and seems irrationally intent on imploding.

 

[Haphazard]

I don't argue that Fi is deeper, more "authentic" (although the value of that is debatable) and more aware of itself, but Fe is honestly a lot more useful in interacting with others, and assessing their current feelings in a manner that is useful to the person assessing them, because it is accurate enough, and less likely to overwhelm them. It is also useful in giving people a standard code to use in communication, simplifying it greatly. If we all come to a consensus about what, say, a smile should mean, then we'll all interpret it correctly when it is expressed. BlueWing even admitted that having consistent standards in mathematics such as using decimal and standard arithmetic notation is desirable, so why would this be undesirable in terms of dealing with emotions? It's the same principle, establishing standards to ensure clarity in communication.

The only problem I have with this is that even though 'calibration' is useful it's flawed because it's only an average. There may be an average, but with every average there's deviation from that norm, and that deviation can go pretty damn far.

I wouldn't say that either is 'wrong' but there seems to be a clash whenever the two meet. For Fi, emotions may be more involuntary, so for example, a smile might not exactly be what Fe thinks it is. It's still the same symbol, but it's not going to be interpreted correctly. And, in this case, what are you going to do? A 'smile' should mean 'this' but when this person does it, it idiosyncratically means something completely different. The rules that Fe have set up are not going to change for this person, while this person's internal feelings, Fi, are not going to change because some external rules said so.

And thus we have reached an impasse...

 

[Athenian200]

The only problem I have with this is that even though 'calibration' is useful it's flawed because it's only an average. There may be an average, but with every average there's deviation from that norm, and that deviation can go pretty damn far.

I wouldn't say that either is 'wrong' but there seems to be a clash whenever the two meet. For Fi, emotions may be more involuntary, so for example, a smile might not exactly be what Fe thinks it is. It's still the same symbol, but it's not going to be interpreted correctly. And, in this case, what are you going to do? A 'smile' should mean 'this' but when this person does it, it idiosyncratically means something completely different. The rules that Fe have set up are not going to change for this person, while this person's internal feelings, Fi, are not going to change because some external rules said so.

And thus we have reached an impasse...

My interpretation of this is that the person's internal feelings are abnormal, and communicating with them would require effort I'd prefer not to expend unless they know something that justifies me having to put up with this. Basically, if someone is going to demand effort for me to communicate in an abnormal language, then they'd darn well better be intelligent and insightful enough to justify me spending my time and energy trying to learn it. Otherwise, I'd just prefer to avoid them because they seem selfish and arrogant (not saying they are, but that's how it feels to most people).

 

[Haphazard]

My interpretation of this is that the person's internal feelings are abnormal, and communicating with them would require effort I'd prefer not to expend unless they know something that justifies me having to put up with this. Basically, if someone is going to demand effort for me to communicate in an abnormal language, then they'd darn well better be intelligent and insightful enough to justify me spending my time and energy trying to learn it. Otherwise, I'd just prefer to avoid them because they seem selfish and arrogant (not saying they are, but that's how it feels to most people).

Hmm, that's a little judgmental, isn't it?

As far as I can see, FJ at its best can get a good temperature reading of the emotional intensity of a room and work from there. FP at its best, however, will suspend judgement and accept the differences because it can understand that there will be differences because it's different itself.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I think what I meant was that the prejudice of subjective interpretation is worse than that created by being directly related to the object. Because it's often more ridiculous and irrationally certain of it's own correctness, and certain that it's standards of corruption and perfection apply to everyone absolutely. It cannot be modified when it is clear to others that it is flawed because of it's own internalized value and self-certainty. It doesn't seem to accept that morality only exists within the context of a particular situation, and humanity in general, and that morality and emotion is not a separate entity that exists in and of itself, but exists on top of an impersonal world as an effect emanating from it. This understanding would seem to be a flaw.



But F has nothing to do with knowledge. Focusing on one's own feelings doesn't help you understand those of other people, and the only useful application of feeling is to help others through their problems and experience the feeling of empathy and connection. What good is it to brood about feelings alone? They'll never really make sense or resolve themselves that way.


Why is the external influence assumed to have a greater potential to be pernicious than the internal one? In my experience, leaving people alone with their own feelings just causes them to brood and intensify, possibly exaggerating them and making it into a large mess. And Fi refuses to be given a helping hand from outside, and seems irrationally intent on imploding.

You're absolutely right that the internal influence weighs a heavier toll than the external, as the external is more or less confined to the occurences of the outer world, yet the internal can stretch nearly as far as your imagination can. (Of course it is confined by the constraints of external occurences, but not nearly as much).

However, the introvert, by virtue of being in closer affinity with the faculties of contemplation has better tools to extricate himself from his biases. Think of it this way, I'd have an easier time travelling a thousand miles by car than you would travelling 50 miles by foot.

 

[Gabe]

Athenian, as I understand your argument that Fe is more accurate than Fi because it is objective in the regard that it relates to the object or the external world directly, not like Fi that interposes subjective interpretation between itself and the world.


However, objective in this sense is different from objective in the regard of standing devoid of your prejudices. To use the two interchangeably means to succumb to the fallacy of equivocation.


There are two ways to gain knowledge, either through your own reflection, or by having someone else instruct you. The former is akin to Fi methodology, the latter to Fe.

Which is more objective with respect to the second definition? Fe is at the whims of whatever pernicious external influence may come by, and has difficulty extricating itself from that as the external influence is the fuel Fe runs on. Fi certainly easily falls victim to internal influences, yet since it is always in process of thought, it has the proper tools to combat the influences should they be pernicious.

Sriv, check my disclaimers and the personality/type distinction. Fe is but an unconscious tendency towards applying the human element to external entities. All other statements I have made concenring that notion are examples of how Fe may or may not manifest through personality. This is all but means to the end of evincing how Fe works in our unconscious tendencies. I was trying to make a point that as a matter of psychology, Fe derives its own identity from the outside. Most of the comments stated in reply to my profile were irrelevant as they deal with personality and not type. Such notions are best examined in the realm of social sciences such as psychology or sociology.

Objective does not mean *instructed*. It means right there on the object. You don't need to be 'instructed', if you have any level of feeling differentiation, to know what's a sad face or a happy face, and what's a fortunate or unfortunate situation.

Now I'll launch into how you're stuff that's supposedly about Fe types is really obviously more about shadow aspects of Fe that people (you? Yeah, probably) experience.
When people are uncomfortable, or incompitent with extraverted feeling they might:
- refuse to compliment someone for thier accomplishments.
-become completely clueless of what other people think of them, or not clueless but completely unable to figure out why some people dislike them. (I'll go ahead and associate such bullshit as 'they hate us for our freedoms' as examples of a deeply shadowy Fe in the U.S)
-become misanthropic, yet heavily unconsciously infuenced by what some people think of them.
- rigidly engage in socially correct behavior 'to be safe', and come to be seen as snobs or fools as they are completely oblivious to people's changing tastes.
-use 'they're a wierdo' as an excuse for lack of compassion.

On a side note, whenever a process is being described very negatively, assume that you are accidently describing the shadow aspects.

 

[Drezoryx]

First its pretty great that you've made this profile for Fe Doms and is a fair bit of material to chew over in idle time. At places a young/immature Fe dom has been portrayed and discussed and at others a maturer one without clarifying the same, also thinking is presumed to be a superior rational function, and the article seems to be based on somewhat negative neurotic image of a enfj in mind which is probably what is itching so many..

for example where Fi is highly developed then harmony between external and internal feeling is sought for by the Fe dom.

Its a funny example where you say that "smiling symbolizez happiness" only because Fe dom has been told it does so. This is an inane suggestion. Even a baby of 2 months smiles when he/she is happy.

rather interesting to note you point that segregation of people based on their social status such that may be income. race, or group affiliations is doubtlessly the legacy if extroverted feeling.

this argument is based on the fact that Fe is unable to disconnect from the external context of environment and not able to think for oneself. Isn't this itself black and white thinking? or this could be a portrait of a very young Fe dom. surely as the person grows other functions develops especially Fi for Fe doms which helps form idealistic standards for the self taken from the external environment.



another point how far is this anlaysis also applicable to the ESFJ? for example there is a statement made " Fe doms tends to be adept at understanding the political aspects of external social phenomena and how to contribute to such a scenario." This would inevitably involve N but is this also the same for S types? How easy is discussing politics for ESFJ?

another one

" intellectual enterprises are bound to leave him baffled and intimidated." How so? and what kind of intellectual enterprises are we talking about? hardcore research? Its surely something not very attractive but its not baffling.


Another one in the beginning of the analysis it was said that only external environment is reference point for Fe doms and later its being said "Fe doms further impose rules of etiquette on all people he can control" so this must assume that Fi has developed sufficiently to allow such a behaviour? is this healthy or unhealthy or just is.?

Where Vladimir Lenins example is mentioned. Isnt it that the Fe dom is trying to portray himself as a intellectual in front of bertrand russeldd and instead giving the impression of bigotry and cruelty? Has bertrand russell clearly understood the motivations here?

there is another point where "lack of reflection" is being strained on. There is a lot of introverted thinking, complex thinking, always on in ENFJs minds.

Also where its mentioned that FE dom without access to introverted faculties will simply line himself up to the roles imposed upon him, is it considered that most ENFJs are born rebels

there is a mention of Ti being developed around middle age. Could you elbaorate on how this pans out in the real life.?

but overall im happy to note that introverted intuition and perception are being advised to be developed in this type to formulate a rigorous code of personal ethic.

 

[Thessaly]

may I request an INFP profile??

 

[Scott N Denver]

may I request an INFP profile??

there already is one by him. It seemed fine, but then he TOTALLY went anti-INFP anti-Fi. Click on INFP threads and look at the bottom of the page for "INFP profile" you'll come across it

 

[Happyman]

I'd say there's quite a lot of bollocks in this description (still I've enjoyed reading this). As for objectivity of mr. Solitary Walker I'll allow myself to quote his ESFJ profile from INTP Central forum:

I think that ESFJs should be exempt from responsibility for their actions. They are retarded. They are not capable of any original thought. They can only do what they are 'taught' to do. How can you judge them too harshly for what they do? They don't have minds of their own at all. From a Christian point of view, salvation should be given to them unconditionally. They don't have a self or a soul, they are just too group oriented to make individual decisions of any kind. The Bible says that salvation is an individual journey, which means that a person must say to himself ' I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and Savior'. Then from this it follows that he believes that there is a God who answers his prayers, so he will pray and tell God about the choice he just made. An ESFJ can't do that. She is extremely afraid of being alone, or thinking of any kind. She can only repeat what other church people said 'yes Jesus I accept you as my lord savior' without a shred of retention or a single bit of understanding what she just said.

and the most objective part:

Geee. I wonder what it means to be an ESFJ

Well, to start with: ESFJs LOVE to worship authority. They are EXTREMELY CONSCIENTIOUS and believe that it is paramount to get the JOB DONE regardless of how frivolous it is. Especially so when it is assigned by authority figures that they need to suck up to. They always need to suck up to some authority figure, they dont have minds of their own, so they need to be told what they are like because otherwise they won't have a self-concept of any kind at all. They also LOVE TO WORSHIP TRADITIONS OH... GOD FORBID THE CHURCH TO THEM IS SACRED. Why is the church sacred? Is there a reason to believe in that? No, just because Bob Smith from across the street told them so and oh mmmmyyyyyyy because of that it must be true so from this it follows that well should dedicate our lives to it. Wait a second!! ALL THE OTHER RELIGIONS MUST BE FALSE TOO!!!!??/ AND EVEN WORSE... TO THAT WE SHOULD ADD THEY ARE WRONG!!!

BUTTT NOOOO WE SHOULD NEVER EVEN THINK ABOUT STUDYING THEM OR PAYING ANY ATTENTION TO THEM AT ALL BECAUSE THAT IS JUST PLAIN BAD.... AND OUR AUTHORITY FIGURES WILL BE DISPLEASED WITH US

OH GOD CURSE ANYONE WHO MAY HTINK THAT OUR BOSSES ARE NOT DESERVING OF ADULATION.

AS PARENTS THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN FULL CONTROL OVER THE ACTIONS OF THEIR CHILDREN. SINCE ESFJS HAVE NO VALUE OR UNDERSTANDING OF THINGS LIKE AUTONOMY OR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND BECAUSE THEY CANT THINK FOR THEMSELVES THEY JUST AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME THAT EVERYONE WANTS TO BE A DRONE AND A SERVILE LACKEY OF WHATEVER POWERS THAT BE.

SO THEY BELIEVE THAT CHILDREN ARE ENTIRELY MINDLESS AND NEED STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO TO TIE THEIR SHOES. THEY ALSO BELIEVE THAT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS THE WAY TO GO TO... WHY??? BECAUSE THE CONVENTION SAYS SO!! AND THE CONVENTION IS SACRED!!! AND MUST BE WORSHIPPED!!!!

DONT ARGUE WITH ME I ALWAYS KNOW BETTER .... I DONT CARE IF I NEVER HAVE NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT I JUST FEEL THAT WAY.... HOW DARE YOU EVEN SUSPECT ME OF BEING UNHOLY!!!?/ DOESNT EVERYBODY SAY AS I DO!!??? COME ON!!!! WHAT IS THIS ??? IS THIS NORMAL FOR YOU TO EVEN DARE QUESTION THE IMMUTABLE VOICE OF YOUR MOTHER!!!??/

NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL NORMAL

AUTHORITY MUST BE WORSHIPPED... AUTHORITY MUST BE WORSHIPPED

THE CHURCH IS SACRED THE CHURCH IS SACRED THE CHURCH IS SACRED

IF YOU EVER DISAGREE WITH ME I'LL FUCKING CURL INTO A BOWL AND BEGIN WEEPING EFFUSIVELY LIKE A LITTLE BITCH


NO OF COURSE NOT I WILL NEVER FUCKING SIT AND THINK FOR 5 SECONDS TO REALIZE THAT MY EMOTIONS ARE SUPERFICIAL AND EPHEMERAL AND I AM LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD LITTLE GIRL JUST TRYING TO GET WHAT I WANT THROUGH FEIGNING BEING SAD


OBVIOUSLY THESE ESFJS ARE INCAPABLE OF ANY REAL DEPTH OF THOUGHT OR FEELING THEY JUST EXPRESS ALL EMOTION POSSIBLE EVEN IF IT IS AS MINISCULE AS THE ONE OF A FIVE YEAR OLD GIRL FEELING BUMMED OUT ABOUT HAVING HER COOKIE TAKEN AWAY FROM HER



OUH!! THE STUDIES SHOW THAT ESFJS VALUE RELIGION AND SPIRITUALITY A GREAT DEAL, THOUGH THEY HAVE VERY LITTLE REGARD FOR THINGS LIKE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND AUTONOMY AND JUST INDEPENDENCE IN GENERAL.

WELL... SHITTT... MAYBE FROM THIS IT COULD FOLLOW THAT MAYBE SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE DEEPLY SPIRITUAL AND BELIEVE IN RELIGIOUS IDEALS...

YEAH RIGHT.... ALL THEY WANT IS SECURITY

THEY DONT CARE ABOUT GOD OR SPIRITUALITY...

HOW CAN THEY???????????


THEY CANT THINK PAST THE MOMENTS OF THEIR EPHEMERAL EMOTION

THEY CAN ONLY BE PITIOUS SYCOPHANTS OF WHOEVER CAN FULFILL THEIR HUGE NEED TO BELONG AND FEEL SECURE THEY WILL PROSTITUTE THEIR SOUL FOR A ROOF TO LIVE UNDER

FUCKING HYPOCRITES EVEN DARE RECITING THOSE BIBLICAL VERSES WHERE JESUS TELLS SATAN THAT MAN DOES NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONG

SUPPOSEDLY WHAT HE MEANT THERE WAS..
MAN SHOULD WANT MORE THAN JUST SECURITY...

MAN SHOULD STRIVE TO WORSHIP GOD AND LIVE FOR HIGHER IDEALS..


BUT YOU RETARDED ESFJ SCOUNDRELS DO LIVE ON BREAD ALONG.....

YOUR WORSHIP OR MATERIAL POSSESSIONS, CONVENTIONAL WISDOM AND SOCIAL HIERARCHY IS IMPOSSIBLE TO DENY

SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE DEPTH OF YOUR FEELINGS.... YOU DONT HAVE ANY

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR LOVE FOR CHRIST.... YOU ARE TO SUPERFICIAL TO LOVE

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT HOW YOU MAY OR MAY NOT LOVE YOUR CHILDREN OR YOUR HUSBANDS BECAUSE THE REASON YOU'RE SMOTHERING THEM IS BECAUSE YOU NEED TO EXERCISE SOME FUCKING CONTROL OVER PEOPLE IN YOUR LIFE THAT CAN BE CONTROLLED SO YOU COULD FEEL THERE IS SOME WORTH TO YOU AS OPPOSED TO NONE AT ALL

SO WHY DO YOU PRETEND TO LOVE YOUR HUSBANDS... FUCKING CUNTS


BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT AUTHORITY FIGURES AND THE BIG BROTHERS WHO WILL ALWAYS WATCH OUT FOR YOU AT THE EXPENSE OF YOU GIVING UP YOUR FREEDOM OF THOUGHT

THEY GIVE YOU PERFECT OPPORTUNITIES TO BRING SOMEONE INTO YOUR LIVES WHO CAN FUCKING MAKE ALL THE DECISIONS FOR YOU AND HIDE YOU FROM THE COLD REALITY OF YOU HAVING NO FUCKING WORTH.... DONT PRETEND YOU HAVE NO REAL FEELINGS FOR THEM.... HAD THEY GOTTEN INTO A SITUATION WHERE THEY CANT BE THERE TO SERVE YOUR VAIN AND SUPERFICIAL NEEDS YOU'D ABANDON THEM IN SECONDS OR JUST WHINE INCESSANTLY AND BECOME A TERRIBLE BURDEN FOR THEM TO BEAR ON TOP OF THE PROBLEMS THEY ARE CONFRONTED WITH AT THE TIME


YES THERE FUCKING IS A RETARDED TYPE

THATS YOUR ESFJ

AT LEAST ESFPS CAN USE THEIR PERCEIVING FUCNTION TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT OUT OF CONVENTION.... (THOUGH NOT A LOT) AND AT LEAST THEY DONT GET OBSESSED WITH WORSHIPPING AUTHORITY AT LEAST THEY HAVE SOME KIND OF A NOTION OF WHAT IT IS LIKE TO FUCKING LIVE YOUR OWN LIFE AND OBVIOUSLY THESE ESFPS HAVE NO NEED TO CONTROL OTHERS LIKE THE ESFJS SCOUNDRELS DO


SHITMUNCHING CUNTS.. THE FACT OF THEIR EXISTENCE IS A GODDAMN ABOMINATION.

Ooohh... we were treated nicely...

 

[JocktheMotie]

Blah blah blah

Yes, posts that are created in Rants, Raves, and Hot Air are clearly objective, and of course imply that the expulsions in one post of frustration are indicative of the poster's general attitude and scope.

 

[Kalach]

Just out of interest, what part of the description was wrong?

Because, aside from the entertaining adjective use, standard type descriptions more or less agree with what was presented above.

The ESFJ's value system is defined externally. They usually have very well-formed ideas about the way things should be, and are not shy about expressing these opinions. However, they weigh their values and morals against the world around them, rather than against an internal value system. They may have a strong moral code, but it is defined by the community that they live in, rather than by any strongly felt internal values.

ESFJs who have had the benefit of being raised and surrounded by a strong value system that is ethical and centered around genuine goodness will most likely be the kindest, most generous souls who will gladly give you the shirt off of their back without a second thought. For these individuals, the selfless quality of their personality type is genuine and pure. ESFJs who have not had the advantage of developing their own values by weighing them against a good external value system may develop very questionable values. In such cases, the ESFJ most often genuinely believes in the integrity of their skewed value system. They have no internal understanding of values to set them straight. In weighing their values against our society, they find plenty of support for whatever moral transgression they wish to justify. This type of ESFJ is a dangerous person indeed. Extraverted Feeling drives them to control and manipulate, and their lack of Intuition prevents them from seeing the big picture. They're usually quite popular and good with people, and good at manipulating them. Unlike their ENFJ cousin, they don't have Intuition to help them understand the real consequences of their actions. They are driven to manipulate other to achieve their own ends, yet they believe that they are following a solid moral code of conduct.



To avoid going to Hell, I point out this quoted text condemns societies and communities, and thus everyone in any position of responsibility, not ESFJs. Seemingly.

 

[Happyman]

Yes, posts that are created in Rants, Raves, and Hot Air are clearly objective, and of course imply that the expulsions in one post of frustration are indicative of the poster's general attitude and scope.

I only suggest that it's impossible to remain objective having such a strong anti 'Fe' feelings.

As the man himself (Solitary Walker) has said:

Well, I can't say that what I have here is an objective exegesis of the ESFJ temperament, however, what I have said in this thread clearly applies to the ESFJ persons that I got to know.

Edit:

Just out of interest, what part of the description was wrong?
Because, aside from the entertaining adjective use, standard type description more or less agree with what was presented above.

Let's say that this is a caricature of an ESFJ, still I find lines like this:

SHITMUNCHING CUNTS.. THE FACT OF THEIR EXISTENCE IS A GODDAMN ABOMINATION.

... pretty damn disturbing.

 

[Kalach]

Let's say that this is a caricature of an ESFJ, still I find lines like this:


... pretty damn disturbing.

Indeed.

That aside, it's interesting, the role of communities in the development and maintenance of people. I wonder therefore at values. Values in general. Like, appraisals of independence and dependence, their meaning and importance to different people.

 

[Happyman]

it's interesting, the role of communities in the development and maintenance of people. I wonder therefore at values. Values in general. Like, appraisals of independence and dependence, their meaning and importance to different people.

IT IS very interesting (sociology major, speaking to you ). I was thinking about PM you about it.

I mean... I've quoted the whole post here, because I've found it somewhat scary that there MIGHT be people who do not think for themselves, who do not take time to examine what they believe in. Yet assuming this would make understanding some people much easier...

I strongly believe that analysing our own values is what truly makes us human beings. I somehow refuse to accept that, some of us not only do not do it, but are also somehow incapable of doing it. How the hell can we have democracy with people like that?

PS To add some spice to whole thing: I dated an ESFJ girl for a long time and... ooh... it would explain a lot if all of it was true (and make some other stuff harder to understand)... Yet I always wanted to give her privilege of a doubt.. Also I think it is too simple to look at these people like that.

(I hope for further discussion )