The ESFP "stupid" myth.

[Note]

The theoretical basis for typology is that each type has certain innate characteristics. For ESFPs, these are outgoingness, gregariousness, playfulness, among others. Most of these don't correlate with intelligence, as least to SJs and NTs, hence the "stupid ESFP stereotype". Most ESFP descriptions clearly state that ESFPs strongly dislike dealing with absract concepts, logic, and reasoning so, if one makes a connection between those traits and intelligence, then ESFPs are definately unintelligent, at least, again, because of the absence of those traits. There are exceptions of ESFPs who do have those traits, but there are exceptions for everything else as well. There are ENFP scientists, INTJ psychologists, etc. Pointing them out is sort of a moot point.

Those ENFP scientists and INTJ psychologists were still ENFPs and INTJs, meaning that they posessed ENFP and INTJ traits. A logical, quiet, reasoning ESFP is not an ESFP at all, it's just not part of the description.

The problem comes when people like the INTJ above generalize people into groups based on their MBTI type. While MBTI is a valuable way to categorize people, he's treating it as if it is logical and has been proven scientifically, which it hasn't. Accepting or rejecting someone's answer on the basis of their type like you just did is a sign of irrationality, ignorance and of a weak, crippled mind.

There are a few possibilities towards why you're acting like this:
-An enflated sense of self-worth.
-Traumatic experiences with ESFPs.

Your posts are incredibly arrogant and cringy to read. I'm almost embarassed that people would associate you and me on the basis of the similarity between our types (One letter, I'm INTP, you're INTJ).

 

[Litvyak]

A logical, quiet, reasoning ESFP is not an ESFP at all, it's just not part of the description.

You fail to see that these are only preferences. Everybody is able to use any functions they want, they just usually rely on other functions instead. If, for example, Ni is absolutely necessary to solve a problem, a healthy ESFP will use Ni instead of their primary Se. An ESFP is able to get in a "logical, quiet, reasoning" mode just like an INT, it's just not a common sight, since they use other methods to deal with the challenges they face. It has nothing to do with intelligence, it's a matter of different mental constitution and approach to life.

 

[JoSunshine]

You're an ENFP, so I'm not inclined to take your word on who is and who isn't intelligent very seriously.

That's a pretty unintelligent post, Lex.

 

[CzeCze]

I've noticed a trend in television sitcoms for "stupid" characters to be ESFPs.
Notably, Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Joey Tribbiani and Kelly Bundy.

Obviously this a stereotype unfounded in reality, but what is it about ESFPs that makes Hollywood writers make them stupid characters, or alternatively make stupid characters into ESFPs?

PS Others might have also pointed this out but Peter Griffin is more likely EXTP than ESFP and other than Kelly Bundy, I'm not sure about the others being ESFP.

I think NTs, or at last many NTs who have posted in the forum about the 'logic', or *lack* of logic in others have a very specific, very NT modeled idea of intelligence. Namely it is marked and unaccompanied by a lack of emotion - it is dispassionate.

So the argument isn't about whether someone is intelligent, but rather whether or not you think they conduct themselves "like an intelligent person". In this way, it's kinda a self fulfilling prophecy as you define the terms of "intelligent" so narrowly and based on how you yourself act. The NT idea of "intelligence" is also traditionally masculine in some way and EXFX's are traditionally embody "feminine" traits.

Somebody could be an accomplished and decorated scientist or valedectorian but I swear if they dared to have Hello Kitty seat protectors in their car or bedazzled their phone or fawned over their twin Shih Tzu's Poco and Moco or spend their weekends at raging keggers I think some people would automatically label them "unintelligent".

 

[Lex Talionis]

The theoretical basis for typology is that each type has certain innate characteristics. For ESFPs, these are outgoingness, gregariousness, playfulness, among others. Most of these don't correlate with intelligence, as least to SJs and NTs, hence the "stupid ESFP stereotype". Most ESFP descriptions clearly state that ESFPs strongly dislike dealing with absract concepts, logic, and reasoning so, if one makes a connection between those traits and intelligence, then ESFPs are definately unintelligent, at least, again, because of the absence of those traits. There are exceptions of ESFPs who do have those traits, but there are exceptions for everything else as well. There are ENFP scientists, INTJ psychologists, etc. Pointing them out is sort of a moot point.

Very good assessment, and closely in line with what I've already stated. Agreed.

Those ENFP scientists and INTJ psychologists were still ENFPs and INTJs, meaning that they posessed ENFP and INTJ traits. A logical, quiet, reasoning ESFP is not an ESFP at all, it's just not part of the description.

Agreed.

The problem comes when people like the INTJ above generalize people into groups based on their MBTI type. While MBTI is a valuable way to categorize people, he's treating it as if it is logical and has been proven scientifically, which it hasn't. Accepting or rejecting someone's answer on the basis of their type like you just did is a sign of irrationality, ignorance and of a weak, crippled mind.

I am not "generalizing" anymore than what the test naturally demands. That is what personality tests do: they classify.

Is it wrong to state that, on average, different personality types will exhibit certain tendencies and have characteristics that are found in fewer frequency amongst other types? I would like to think that this is common sense.

Myers-Briggs is based after the work of Carl Jung, and was further refined by David Keirsey. Isabel Myers Briggs herself was a psychological theorist. The test definitely has scientific basis.

There are a few possibilities towards why you're acting like this:
-An enflated sense of self-worth.
-Traumatic experiences with ESFPs.

Assumptions, assumptions.

Your posts are incredibly arrogant and cringy to read. I'm almost embarassed that people would associate you and me on the basis of the similarity between our types (One letter, I'm INTP, you're INTJ).

Truth can be painful.

You fail to see that these are only preferences. Everybody is able to use any functions they want, they just usually rely on other functions instead. If, for example, Ni is absolutely necessary to solve a problem, a healthy ESFP will use Ni instead of their primary Se. An ESFP is able to get in a "logical, quiet, reasoning" mode just like an INT, it's just not a common sight, since they use other methods to deal with the challenges they face. It has nothing to do with intelligence, it's a matter of different mental constitution and approach to life.

People "prefer" what they are naturally predisposed to preferring. An ESFP can no more force himself to think like an NT than you can force yourself to think like Stephen Hawking.

"Preference" is a misleading term which may be misconstrued to mean that people have a choice in the matter. They don't.

That's a pretty unintelligent post, Lex.

Thank you.

I think NTs, or at last many NTs who have posted in the forum about the 'logic', or *lack* of logic in others have a very specific, very NT modeled idea of intelligence. Namely it is marked and unaccompanied by a lack of emotion - it is dispassionate.

Logic doesn't require emotion; emotion only hinders it. Understanding emotion is different than applying emotion to logic, as understanding emotion itself can be stripped down using pure logic.

So the argument isn't about whether someone is intelligent, but rather whether or not you think they conduct themselves "like an intelligent person". In this way, it's kinda a self fulfilling prophecy as you define the terms of "intelligent" so narrowly and based on how you yourself act. The NT idea of "intelligence" is also traditionally masculine in some way and EXFX's are traditionally embody "feminine" traits.

Somebody could be an accomplished and decorated scientist or valedectorian but I swear if they dared to have Hello Kitty seat protectors in their car or bedazzled their phone or fawned over their twin Shih Tzu's Poco and Moco or spend their weekends at raging keggers I think some people would automatically label them "unintelligent".

I partially agree with the definition of intelligence varying by personality type, but what isn't defined according to our perceptions?

Intelligence is not only about solving problems and understanding concepts, but being able to decide appropriately and apply your knowledge. This is where personality plays a crucial role. If somebody expresses characteristics that obstruct their ability to utilize their intelligence, then they are severely limited, and one could justifiably call them unintelligent. ESFPs do this.

 

[Litvyak]

People "prefer" what they are naturally predisposed to preferring. An ESFP can no more force himself to think like an NT than you can force yourself to think like Stephen Hawking.
"Preference" is a misleading term which may be misconstrued to mean that people have a choice in the matter. They don't.

Well, no. Why do I even bother?

The IQ of Hawking = the "quality" of cognitive processes, it is therefore measurable.
The preference of an ESFP to use Se over Ni = a matter of attitude, it is not measurable. Se may or may not be as efficient as Ni in problem solving, it depends on the problem.

Functions are "open" to everybody, while people use some functions more often than others, which is explained by MBTI. I can never think as fast as Stephen Hawking, but an ESFP can "force" himself to think the way I do, if it is absolutely necessary to solve a problem. He'll most likely prefer other ways of thinking though. Conclusions can be reached in more than one way, more often than not.

You think of MBTI as a caste system, where types are ranked according to a certain "quality", where you can only use those functions you're more familiar with. This is a wrong premise, no wonder your theory is flawed. Less time spent with introspection doesn't mean a lesser (slower) mind, this is not logical at all.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Well, no. Why do I even bother?

The IQ of Hawking = the "quality" of cognitive processes, it is therefore measurable.
The preference of an ESFP to use Se over Ni = a matter of attitude, it is not measurable. Se may or may not be as efficient as Ni in problem solving, it depends on the problem.

Functions are "open" to everybody, while people use some functions more often than others, which is explained by MBTI. I can never think as fast as Stephen Hawking, but an ESFP can "force" himself to think the way I do, if it is absolutely necessary to solve a problem. He'll most likely prefer other ways of thinking though. Conclusions can be reached in more than one way, more often than not.

You think of MBTI as a caste system, where types are ranked according to a certain "quality", where you can only use those functions you're more familiar with. This is a wrong premise, no wonder your theory is flawed. Less time spent with introspection doesn't mean a lesser (slower) mind, this is not logical at all.

My "theory" is in accordance with the test and its theoretical basis.

Somebody who doesn't think like an INTJ, for example, will never be an INTJ, unless he is genetically predisposed to that thought pattern. How can somebody measure their own personality "change" and conclude that it was an actual change, and not just accessing another facet of their own innate personality? Preferences are driven by underlying factors (genetics) that result in that particular preference. In other words, there is a reason why people "prefer" what they do. I believe in the genetic theory of personality, and believe genes play a greater role than environment when it comes to personality. This doesn't just apply to Myers-Briggs, but to individual personality regardless of which test one uses to measure it.

Real world observation doesn't show the changes in personality you claim exist. People's core personality generally stays the same throughout their lives, unless they experience significant neurological changes, such as brain trauma or prolonged drug use.

I have never denied that ESFPs can be intelligent, nor have I claimed that other types can't borrow traits from other personalities and utilize them to whatever extent they need. My only claim is that on average, and due to innate psychological differences, certain types will perform better in certain areas than others.

 

[BlackCat]

Do you honestly post here to only bash ESFPs? Do you really hate them that much?

 

[KDude]

As a (probably) ESFP, i fully admit to stupidity. I surprise even my self sometimes.

But admitting it makes me clever actually, y'see...

 

[Ginkgo]

Somebody who doesn't think like an INTJ, for example, will never be an INTJ, unless he is genetically predisposed to that thought pattern. How can somebody measure their own personality "change" and conclude that it was an actual change, and not just accessing another facet of their own innate personality? Preferences are driven by underlying factors (genetics) that result in that particular preference. In other words, there is a reason why people "prefer" what they do. I believe in the genetic theory of personality, and believe genes play a greater role than environment when it comes to personality. This doesn't just apply to Myers-Briggs, but to individual personality regardless of which test one uses to measure it.

Now, this is a separate argument, Nature vs. Nurture, which isn't dissimilar from asking "What made the palm tree what it is today, the seed or the soil?"

You will find that environmental conditions affect the expression of genes, thus the expression of personality. You will also find that individuals of certain genetic dispositions can be found in particular environments. These two elements are synergistic, and I personally don't understand why they are still pitted against each other.

EDIT: I mean, why should we just think about the direct relationship between the seed and the environment? Certainly, certain (genetically disposed) species of plants congregate in environments for which they are best suited, and the environment is affected thereafter. There are also studies that have been done with twins and adoptive children that were largely inconclusive (that is, they produced data, but because we have yet to directly link cause to effect, they are inconclusive of anything substantive).

I know you mentioned childhood trauma, but why are we prying pure trauma apart from other atmospheric conditions? Because they are stressful enough to be under a separate paradigm? There are reasons as to why they are stressful, and those reasons should be considered on their own individual terms in the same way we examine why a suspect is guilty/non-guilty so that they can be applied to the overall essence of the atmosphere. Too many variables are bouncing around in my mind for me to enunciate them.

 

[KDude]

Obviously, individuals of the ESFP archetype may take offense to claims that they are the "dumbest". They are, after all, feelers.

I really doubt anyone's offended. I'd say that this is not exactly the type of arena ESFP's care about enough to get butthurt by....considering that they are barely here to even give themselves the opportunity to care in the first place. That said, even though I might be one of the few here, I don't even know who Lex Talonis is. Fat chance I'm gonna start getting hurt by some random dude I know nothing about. And even if I did know him, the critcism is silly to me. Getting one's hate on for someone not being strongly rationalist or something is one of the most unrational things to do, in my opinion. There are multiple ways to value people. And about the only people worth hating are like in the extreme: the murderers, thieves.. that kind of shit. But hating people just for not being super smart is kind of crazy.

 

[Tamske]

^Now there's a smart ESFP

I've followed this thread a bit and would like to put my ideas about it all in a row. I'm using "stupid" in the usual sense of the word - not intelligent.

1) All ESFPs are dumb.
False. Only one counter-example is needed to prove it false. See previous post for counter-example.

2) There is a correlation between ESFP and stupidity. ESFPs tend to be more stupid.
I don't know. Before you state such a thing, you should do some statistics. If you just shout out generalities without any ground, you're only proving you're stupid yourself.

3) Stupidity follows from the type description. If you are smart, you're not going to choose the ESFP preference.
Why not?
If an ESFP has to choose between "kind" and "smart", he'll choose "kind". That's part of the preference. But you don't get a choice on intelligence. You can add to it by exercising it. If there is a correlation between type and intelligence, I think exercise would be the cause. Take eg. INTPs, they love to pick apart and reassemble theories, so after a while they'll get better at it.

4) Using Se is stupid and childish.
False.
You can use Se in a childish manner - "I want the cookie now". But so you can use any function in a childish manner. I'm going to take my dominant (and the ESFP's last one) as an example: Ne - "I wish it was weekend, I want to do all this! It's weekend now, I'm bored, all those things I've imagined during school aren't interesting any more."
I wish I could give priority to my Se on some occasions...

5) Stupid ESFPs are funny and the ideal character in a comic movie.
Probably yes, that's why the thread was started actually. The original question was more or less "Why are the stupid guys in comic acts ESFPs?" I can't speak from experience here. I hate comic movies based on extreme stupidity. It doesn't make me laugh, it frustrates the heck out of me.
I also think you can imagine a stupid version of any type. Yes, even of the INTJ (a very intolerant one, maybe?). So, people who are sick of seeing stupid ESFPs, why don't you create a story yourself with a stupid other type?

 

[simulatedworld]

I also think you can imagine a stupid version of any type. Yes, even of the INTJ (a very intolerant one, maybe?). So, people who are sick of seeing stupid ESFPs, why don't you create a story yourself with a stupid other type?

I've worked with stupid INTJs and they're among the most irritating people in existence, because they adopt that "I'm way too smart to bother with any of you as you're all just pawns in my master plan anyway ha-ha-ha" attitude that the smart INTJs have, except they're fucking stupid and their master plan is garbage.

They tend to believe in a lot of outlandish conspiracy theories, buy into outrageous fringe right wing propaganda and harbor a lot of unfounded prejudicial beliefs toward various demographic groups they dislike.

We all know a Dale Gribble in real life. They are the dumb INTJs--they're just especially funny because virtually all INTJs believe themselves to be extraordinarily brilliant.

 

[KDude]

^Now there's a smart ESFP

I've followed this thread a bit and would like to put my ideas about it all in a row. I'm using "stupid" in the usual sense of the word - not intelligent.

1) All ESFPs are dumb.
False. Only one counter-example is needed to prove it false. See previous post for counter-example.

2) There is a correlation between ESFP and stupidity. ESFPs tend to be more stupid.
I don't know. Before you state such a thing, you should do some statistics. If you just shout out generalities without any ground, you're only proving you're stupid yourself.

3) Stupidity follows from the type description. If you are smart, you're not going to choose the ESFP preference.
Why not?
If an ESFP has to choose between "kind" and "smart", he'll choose "kind". That's part of the preference. But you don't get a choice on intelligence. You can add to it by exercising it. If there is a correlation between type and intelligence, I think exercise would be the cause. Take eg. INTPs, they love to pick apart and reassemble theories, so after a while they'll get better at it.

4) Using Se is stupid and childish.
False.
You can use Se in a childish manner - "I want the cookie now". But so you can use any function in a childish manner. I'm going to take my dominant (and the ESFP's last one) as an example: Ne - "I wish it was weekend, I want to do all this! It's weekend now, I'm bored, all those things I've imagined during school aren't interesting any more."
I wish I could give priority to my Se on some occasions...

5) Stupid ESFPs are funny and the ideal character in a comic movie.
Probably yes, that's why the thread was started actually. The original question was more or less "Why are the stupid guys in comic acts ESFPs?" I can't speak from experience here. I hate comic movies based on extreme stupidity. It doesn't make me laugh, it frustrates the heck out of me.
I also think you can imagine a stupid version of any type. Yes, even of the INTJ (a very intolerant one, maybe?). So, people who are sick of seeing stupid ESFPs, why don't you create a story yourself with a stupid other type?

^ You're very kind. To seriously address the intelligence question though, I think my positive point is that I have a good memory and a broad sense of curiousity. Which may be some form of intelligence to some people. I just get lost when it comes to more abstract thinking. That takes a concerted effort. I have to work at it. It doesn't mean I don't do it though. Sometimes I even enjoy it *gasp*

At my worst though, sometimes my thinking is completely overridden by momentary/miscalculating/impulsive behavior (all of the above). As far back as I remember, I've been like this. A classmate could bring a parrot for show and tell, and despite the teacher's multiple warnings, I just HAD to stick my finger in the cage and test it. And ever since, I just had to test a lot of things like that. As an adult, I still sometimes make choices where someone else would consider consequences more.. For example, I probably quit jobs easier than anyone I know. I don't think through all the time when it comes to money either. Or commitments.

 

[simulatedworld]

2) There is a correlation between ESFP and stupidity. ESFPs tend to be more stupid.
I don't know. Before you state such a thing, you should do some statistics. If you just shout out generalities without any ground, you're only proving you're stupid yourself.

The larger problem with this is that it assumes one singular, linear definition of intelligence. Of course ESFPs will tend to be "less smart" if you evaluate their intelligence according to NT intelligence standards.

It's a mistake to assume intelligence is one-dimensional.

 

[Litvyak]

there is a reason why people "prefer" what they do.

I believe in the genetic theory of personality, and believe genes play a greater role than environment when it comes to personality.

Real world observation doesn't show the changes in personality you claim exist.

I don't think there's any more room for debate, since we don't even agree on the basics.

 

[Ginkgo]

The larger problem with this is that it assumes one singular, linear definition of intelligence. Of course ESFPs will tend to be "less smart" if you evaluate their intelligence according to NT intelligence standards.

It's a mistake to assume intelligence is one-dimensional.

Yes! We have multiple personality tests that measure aptitude toward personal inclination.

Personal inclination is often linked to personality.

So you might as well say that ESFPs don't exhibit the same kind of intelligence (aka information processing aka functional orientation) as INTJs, (or any other type) - which has already been established.

 

[simulatedworld]

My "theory" is in accordance with the test and its theoretical basis.

Somebody who doesn't think like an INTJ, for example, will never be an INTJ, unless he is genetically predisposed to that thought pattern. How can somebody measure their own personality "change" and conclude that it was an actual change, and not just accessing another facet of their own innate personality? Preferences are driven by underlying factors (genetics) that result in that particular preference. In other words, there is a reason why people "prefer" what they do. I believe in the genetic theory of personality, and believe genes play a greater role than environment when it comes to personality. This doesn't just apply to Myers-Briggs, but to individual personality regardless of which test one uses to measure it.

Actually, there's no science to determine conclusively that cognitive preferences are purely a result of genetics. Most likely, they are the result of a combination of hereditary predispositions and environmental factors.

As for which one plays a greater role--I don't see much point in debating that.

Real world observation doesn't show the changes in personality you claim exist. People's core personality generally stays the same throughout their lives, unless they experience significant neurological changes, such as brain trauma or prolonged drug use.

I have never denied that ESFPs can be intelligent, nor have I claimed that other types can't borrow traits from other personalities and utilize them to whatever extent they need. My only claim is that on average, and due to innate psychological differences, certain types will perform better in certain areas than others.

I agree that people rarely (if ever) change type, but that it's possible if the person experiences a dramatic shift in fundamental worldview, which could be caused by a number of different factors. This would resemble a religious revelation--it would be a powerful, life-altering and permanent change to a very different way of seeing and interpreting the world, and it would not happen easily.

You're correct that some types will, on average, perform better in some areas than other types. The problem is with your assumption that intelligence is one-dimensional, or even measurable on a linear scale. There are numerous different kinds of intelligence, and most of the "intelligence tests" that we use now (IQ, SAT, etc.) are simply tests of certain kinds of intelligence (namely, iNtuitive-Thinking intelligence) that do not even factor in the kinds of intelligence to which most ESFP types are predisposed.

In an earlier post you discussed the MBTI's "basis in scientific fact", and claimed that Keirsey had "refined" Jung's theories. As a student of Jung I must heavily disagree--Jung's ideas have been grossly misinterpreted and applied in many ways he never intended, and to suggest that Keirsey (or Myers and Briggs) have improved upon his cognitive functional models is almost laughable.

Myers and Briggs tried to take complex Jungian concepts and turn them into a 20-minute questionnaire. What they neglected is that these ideas are merely Jung's subjective interpretations of cognition, and as such cannot be tested empirically. There is no test that can accurately determine one's Jungian psychological type...only study of the functions and self-analysis can determine this.

MBTI's test oversimplifies (and frankly, bastardizes) a number of more nuanced Jungian ideas and attempts to assign empirical value to a purely subjective and conjectural idea. There is no basis in scientific fact because:

A) Jung's functional descriptions have never been shown to correlate with any real biological functions in the brain,
B) There is no way to know if MBTI's (or any other test's) questions actually accurately represent Jung's functional concepts, and
C) The tests are dependent upon self-report.

The best we can do with an MBTI test is determine that x% of people would describe themselves as having the characteristics of xyz type--but this doesn't really do much good since we don't know if people are capable of accurate self-description, and we don't know if the test questions accurately represent Jung's ideas in the first place.

Having put a significant amount of study into Jung's ideas myself, I can attest that MBTI's tests frequently do a piss poor job of assigning people to the right categories. Too many people simply (unconsciously) answer how they would like to be, or wish they were, or erroneously view themselves--the test can only describe us as accurately as we can describe ourselves, rendering it all but worthless in the pursuit of determining our true psychological archetype.

If I were you, I'd forget about type testing and recognize Jungian typology as pure philosophy, not science, until such a time as biological science advances its understanding of the human brain far enough that we can see objectively verifiable evidence of (and fully understand and explain) the nature of cognition.

 

[yvonne]

Some ESFPs are stupid, some are highly intelligent. Their average IQ is probably slightly below average, but they would probably come out better in a multiple intelligence theory perspective, probably being above average in musical, bodily-kinesthetic and interpersonal intelligence. My best friend is an ESFP (at first thought to be ENFP, but cognitive processes test revealed she is clearly ESFP) with an IQ of about 150 and a musical genius, so for sure highly intelligent ones exist.

my so is definitely not a stupid ESFP. he has a way above average IQ. extremely clever with words, good at math and very artistic. he can be a bit of a "wild child", though... follows his own path.

 

[Lex Talionis]

I've worked with stupid INTJs and they're among the most irritating people in existence, because they adopt that "I'm way too smart to bother with any of you as you're all just pawns in my master plan anyway ha-ha-ha" attitude that the smart INTJs have, except they're fucking stupid and their master plan is garbage.

They tend to believe in a lot of outlandish conspiracy theories, buy into outrageous fringe right wing propaganda and harbor a lot of unfounded prejudicial beliefs toward various demographic groups they dislike.

I don't really see how any of these factors make one "stupid." Recognizing patterns, such as in a conspiracy, is a characteristic of intelligence. As for "prejudicial beliefs toward various demographic groups they dislike," well, that just strikes me as more of the same leftist nonsense. Humans are social animals that gravitate toward groups, which is why our society takes up the characteristics of the group, and not the individual. Discrimination against groups is perfectly natural.

We all know a Dale Gribble in real life. They are the dumb INTJs--they're just especially funny because virtually all INTJs believe themselves to be extraordinarily brilliant.

No, we don't all know a Dale Gribble in real life. Dale is a fictional character designed for comedic purposes, and an exaggerated one at that; Dale could easily be an FP and not an NT. Regardless, Dale is hardly stupid, only paranoid and delusional.

ESFPs, on the other hand, have an entire web of traits that influence their intellectual abilities in a negative manner.