Plenty of NFs are involved in academia. Being a good student or being interested in knowledge for the sheer love of it does not an NT make. However, her intense love of structure and other clues caused me to lean ISTJ. If we are once again leaning toward NF, I have to insist that she's xNFJ, probably INFJ. I sincerely do not see the case for ENFP, and I've noticed at least three or four other ENFPs in this thread expressing similar doubts.
I don't think that any behavior makes you an NT or any certain type, but the fact that some behavior may be very natural to you likely does. So, if you like using your imagination, it doesn't follow that you're an N as this could be a learned trait for you rather than a natural. However, if using your imagination has always been naturally rewarding for you, then indeed you are quite likely an N.
If a person is organized in his or her activities, does it mean that he or she is a J? Not really, Ps could have acquired qualities that come naturally to Js through experience. As an ENP, one only needs to get comfortable using the third function. It does not seem terribly difficult.
Generally I would regard the opinions of other ENFPs or other people as irrelevant. Most people on this forum are concerned with an activity that can be called 'folk typology'. That is, they have some vague idea of what it means to be a certain type, and assume that you just need to have some certain behaviors to be this or that type.
We usually don't know what they mean when they say that somebody is an 'ENFP', or what behaviors they think somebody must have to be an 'ENFP'. Paying attention to the views of these people will only make the scenario even more confusing than it already is. (I am pretty sure that most people here who think they are ENFPs think they have this type because they see themselves as creative, outgoing and friendly and not because they really understand their natural tendencies. That is how it goes with folk typology in most cases anyways)
At the bottom, however, there is a problem that we tend to think that a person simply must BE outgoing for example, to be an E and not simply have a tendency towards being outgoing.
Its quite possible that Little Linguist has all these qualities that we associate with 'J' and 'S' because of her personal experiences rather than because of her type. Until we get around a behavioristic analysis of the matter, we aren't going to make any progress.
As for my views on the matter, I simply see no tendency in her thought patterns that indicate a judgment focus on the external world or on the concrete. The natural focus seems to be on ideas rather than what can be easily observed with the senses. As for the extroverted judging faculty, I simply see no tendency to organize the external world. In this thread we have all sorts of wild and irrelevant information running amock. A person with a genuine J type (that is a person who has a natural tendency to be a J or organize the external world), rather than a person who merely learned J qualities ( like Little Linguist), would not want to make such a disorganized thread. To be a J means to have a natural drive to organize the world. A person like this will want to organize his world in his free-time, granted that he has the full freedom to be true to his or her type. Little Linguist shows no tendency towards this here. Again, I see this because here she has the full freedom to act however she wants to (she is not constrained by any external protocol such as rules or expectations of others that she must meet, nor is she constrained by any internal sanctions such as deep depression or great confusion) and displays perceiving characteristics by simply throwing all sorts of random information around with little ambition to organize it properly.
