• 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.

entp or enfp

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
Hello everyone, I recently done the MBTI test, I did it in the past too but didn't really care much about it.

So.

My issue is that I do not really know if I am a 'thinker' or a 'feeler'.
I am very extraverted very intuitive and very perceiving. Can't really remember the percentages, but they were over 60. My thinking/feeling is pretty close, or not?

I can't be both can I?
Though I act as I might be a little from both.

I have this habit of doubting everything, and questioning everything so I guess this pretty much applies to my MBTI type too : )).

So if I am an ENFP then 'Your secondary mode is internal, where you deal with things according to how you feel about them'. (from personalitytype.com)
What does that mean? That I should feel something about everything? It just sounds weird.

I understand that feeling and thinking in the MBTI is about how you decide.
Am I subjective or objective?
I am both.
How can one not be subjective?
How can one not be objective?

I am an 'idea' person, and a 'people' person.
I like psychology more than any other science. But that doesn't mean I don't like science.
I like computers, did a little programming, I mostly like theoretical stuff.
Some call the ENTP the 'inventor' which is kinda dumb actually. Not all ENTPs are inventors?!

A includes B, but that doesn't mean B includes A.

Well. The main idea is that I like people more than other sciences, more then computers, but there are periods when I like technology more than people.

I think introverted. The ENFP thinks mostly extraverted?
Which is kinda weird for me....?! ... I need to be alone at home, where I can think.

I really like experimenting stuff, discovering stuff, and then thinking about that, 'connecting the dots', and getting a theoretical idea.

So it's like this.

Interaction fist.
Introspection second.

I am not compassionate. I hate it when people do that. I would rather fix the damn thing rather than feel sorry about what happened to someone.

For example.

There is a flood.
Instead of feeling sorry BUILD A DAM, so you prevent future floods. Stop feeling sorry and do something about it.

There is a flood right now in my country and the stupid media is dramatizing everything, showing people cry and stuff, but no, they don't build a stupid dam, which for me is the same as not caring.

Why feel sorry for something when you can actually FIX IT!!

Well now that I think more about it I sound more ENTp.

I argue. I really love doing that. It's fun.

I have an idea. When I do feel something, it's so unusual, I sometimes get overwhelmed. So I start questioning everything.

Like I'm doing now.

I guess I solved this by myself : )))).

Still.

I might like people because they are more interesting. A computer will never be more interesting than a person, because the person invented the damn thing in the first place.

So I like interesting.

That sounds ENTp I guess.

Ok.

I'll still post this, maybe there's someone else questioning T/F and they'll find some useful stuff here.

I can't get the flood out of my head.

How can anyone feel sorry for the flooded people, but nobody builds a dam.
I guess it's easier to feel sorry. And more expensive to help.

Feeling sorry does not help.

Now that I think a little more about it how could I consider myself a feeler?!
An 'idealist' ?

Doubting everything is annoying.

Although doubting IS improving. How can you improve something if you do not doubt it? If you take it as it is.

Doubting makes you decide slower, so it has good aspects and bad aspects.

So here you have it... the reason I posted this.
I doubted and I needed to think for myself.

I am ENTP. lol
 

Amethyst

¡MI TORTA!
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
2,191
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
7w8
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
Well, for one, yes. You can be both. I'm ExTP, because I use Ne functions just as much as Se.

And you're pretty much a thinker, by what you said.
 

Tom

New member
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
84
MBTI Type
Jipe
Enneagram
Memb
A lot of tests, particularly the ones that measure dichotomously, should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'd learn what an ENTP is functionally and see if it fits you best.

But yeah, you sound like an ENTP.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, for one, yes. You can be both. I'm ExTP, because I use Ne functions just as much as Se.

What!? No, you can't. If you believe this, then you don't recognize typology.

The functions exist around certain requirements. This "x" defeats the function theory. In addition, it's not about "using" functions it's about levels of preference.

MBTI(Y) is from Jungian Psychology(X). You can't have Y without X because that would be destroying the premise, thus, nullifying the latter MBTI simplifications---destroying the entire system.
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
yeah...i gotta agree. according to the functions test i use ni and fe too...and se actually a bit but i don't prefer it...it is not default mode....i also relate a lot to the entp profile...i would almost consider myself more of an idea or inventor person than an advocate...but i'm clearly an enfp.
 

Liesl

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
204
I think the build a dam example demonstrates that you are not an ENFP. :)
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
the amount of rationality and lack of people-talk in your first post made me think

ENTP
ENTP
ENTP

but, like a good T, you deduced that yourself first :D
 

Aleksei

Yeah, I can fly.
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
3,626
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What!? No, you can't. If you believe this, then you don't recognize typology.

The functions exist around certain requirements. This "x" defeats the function theory. In addition, it's not about "using" functions it's about levels of preference.

MBTI(Y) is from Jungian Psychology(X). You can't have Y without X because that would be destroying the premise, thus, nullifying the latter MBTI simplifications---destroying the entire system.
omg someone thinking outside the box call the motherfucking cops

call samuel jackson too while youre at it

he's gotta deal with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane

OP: ENTP, most likely.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
omg someone thinking outside the box call the motherfucking cops

call samuel jackson too while youre at it

he's gotta deal with these motherfucking snakes on this motherfucking plane

If you're implying that the notion of having "X's" means "thinking outside of the box", then sure..but it also mean thinking within a different theory---outside of Jungian typology. Having innate preferences is one of cognitive functions fundamentals, without it there would be no "EISNTFPJ". In which case, it must build a new foundation separate from the cognitive functions. Which means that either that poster has had his own ground-breaking ideas and sound logic or he lacked awareness of the system he subscribed to. The latter seems evident, thus, this is not a case of "thinking outside of the box". This is thinking that 1 + 1 = 2.
 

Aleksei

Yeah, I can fly.
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
3,626
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
We still gotta deal with the snakes on the fucking plane, man.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
Yea...I'm more ENTP...I really felt the need to doubt that.

As for the X thing, it can be quite confusing. I believe that there are people with 50%-50% T/F because this is a very possible variation. It can't ALWAYS be one dominant all the time. I believe that there are exceptions, because they are possible.

But then again, you can never know for sure till you experiment.
 

guesswho

Active member
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
1,977
MBTI Type
ENTP
yeah...i gotta agree. according to the functions test i use ni and fe too...and se actually a bit but i don't prefer it...it is not default mode....i also relate a lot to the entp profile...i would almost consider myself more of an idea or inventor person than an advocate...but i'm clearly an enfp.


100% perceiving??What?! Didn't think that was possible:))
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
Read lots of profiles, chat to lots of other people of the types, see where you fit. You are right that you won't necessarily fit a type description. This is normal. MBTi does not completely describe a person and the letters are not true dichotomies, but there is normally a description which you fit slightly more. If you fit two, then put an x in (ENxP) and maybe look at career paths that overlap both.

I've questioned which of these two types I was also, because I work in physics and have always been a strong logical/mathematical type. I found the point that decides T/F for me is my motive when I take a stand. Think about what really spurs you into action, not the time when it's interesting, but when you feel a duty almost.

p.s. oops, I didn't realise there was a first page :). Did I mention super attention to detail?
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Yea...I'm more ENTP...I really felt the need to doubt that.

As for the X thing, it can be quite confusing. I believe that there are people with 50%-50% T/F because this is a very possible variation. It can't ALWAYS be one dominant all the time. I believe that there are exceptions, because they are possible.

But then again, you can never know for sure till you experiment.

Read lots of profiles, chat to lots of other people of the types, see where you fit. You are right that you won't necessarily fit a type description. This is normal. MBTi does not completely describe a person and the letters are not true dichotomies, but there is normally a description which you fit slightly more. If you fit two, then put an x in (ENxP) and maybe look at career paths that overlap both.

I've questioned which of these two types I was also, because I work in physics and have always been a strong logical/mathematical type. I found the point that decides T/F for me is my motive when I take a stand. Think about what really spurs you into action, not the time when it's interesting, but when you feel a duty almost.

The grand oversimplification simple MBTI popularizes.....

I recommend learning about the Cognitive Functions---the origin of these "TNSFJP" you speak of.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
The grand oversimplification simple MBTI popularizes.....

I recommend learning about the Cognitive Functions---the origin of these "TNSFJP" you speak of.

+1

Hey guys, guess what! I'm an XXXX because I use all the functions equally! Yay!

But yeah, OP sounds much more ENTP than ENFP, based on first glance. I guess he's come to that conclusion already though. :cheese:
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
The grand oversimplification simple MBTI popularizes.....

I saw I got quoted. Please clarify what this has to do with my post?

I agree. Cognitive functions can be quite beneficial when understanding the desciptions of types and methods of thinking. But cognitive functions in no way remove the problem that MBTi uses sets of two letters which a person is not necessarily on one side of. They don't always map directly to type descriptions either as type is a best fit thing, not necessarily something inherited directly from the functions. I'm guessing the reason for this is that MBTi is used for career choices, so a best fit description of the personality is more beneficial than a theoretically derived type based on Jungian functions.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I saw I got quoted. Please clarify what this has to do with my post?
You ended with MBTI and I believe that to be a cause for inaccuracy.

Read lots of profiles, chat to lots of other people of the types, see where you fit. You are right that you won't necessarily fit a type description. This is normal. MBTi does not completely describe a person and the letters are not true dichotomies, but there is normally a description which you fit slightly more. If you fit two, then put an x in (ENxP) and maybe look at career paths that overlap both.
I believe this is insufficient. Cognitive Functions are worth it.

Cognitive functions can be quite beneficial when understanding the desciptions of types and methods of thinking.
There are no "descriptions of types", there are only cognitive functions. Type descriptions are tendencies. Tendencies are indirectly related to "methods of thinking", which is presumably known as cognitive functions.

Thus, when one wants to "know" personality in Jungian terms, one must obligatorily acknowledge that Type descriptions have an indirect relationship with type. They do not define type.

X = Y/Z wherein X = Reality, Y = Type, and Z = Nurture.

Y != X.


But cognitive functions in no way remove the problem that MBTi uses sets of two letters which a person is not necessarily on one side of.
????

The original theory inductively pronounces that we must have temperaments(natural inclination). Inclination pronounces that every human must be in one side or the other. Hence, there is a "Hierarchy of Functions." Arguing that there are "special X" people is either the result of ignorance of MBTI or a new theory that suggests either the absolute, "there is no pattern in personality", or the idea that the patterns must consist of more than 16 personality types. In most cases, the former.

In other words, If I'm understanding you correctly, my answer is: this problem is an illusion and is not the main fault of MBTI.


They don't always map directly to type descriptions either as type is a best fit thing, not necessarily something inherited directly from the functions.
Yes. Type Descriptions exist for simplification. Therefore, unwise to significantly rely on.

I'm guessing the reason for this is that MBTi is used for career choices, so a best fit description of the personality is more beneficial than a theoretically derived type based on Jungian functions.
It serves as a medium of misunderstanding.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
You ended with MBTI and I believe that to be a cause for inaccuracy.

Agree with this. MBTi is not the be all and end all of anything, but neither was my post. I was just offering one or two suggestions and throwing out some anecdotal stuff from what I'd done. The OP was wondering about MBTi, so that was my focus.


I believe this is insufficient. Cognitive Functions are worth it.

As above, why are omissions in a single post of a thread relevant. Can I chat and offer a little or is there a law which enforces complete descriptions of everything at all times?

Cognitive functions, like MBTi, have something to add to a persons understanding, but are also a distortion of it (IMO). No method of typology is superior to in depth study of one's self, and inserting self understanding into the structure of any typological theory would probably be detrimental both to one's objectivity and scientific approach.


There are no "descriptions of types", there are only cognitive functions. Type descriptions are tendencies. Tendencies are indirectly related to "methods of thinking", which is presumably known as cognitive functions.

Thus, when one wants to "know" personality in Jungian terms, one must obligatorily acknowledge that Type descriptions have an indirect relationship with type. They do not define type.

See plural. If you read enough descriptions and see enough members of a type you gain some understanding of which traits are persistent in the bigger picture. It is not the best method, but it can give a person a start, where theory can often be difficult to translate to an understanding of what one with those traits is really like. (see half the threads on TC)


X = Y/Z wherein X = Reality, Y = Type, and Z = Nurture.

Y != X.

I disagree that X=Y/Z, so the rest is irrelevant. There is little to no evidence that type can predict anything in reality, let alone reality itself.


The original theory inductively pronounces that we must have temperaments(natural inclination). Inclination pronounces that every human must be in one side or the other. Hence, there is a "Hierarchy of Functions." Arguing that there are "special X" people is either the result of ignorance of MBTI or a new theory that suggests either the absolute, "there is no pattern in personality", or the idea that the patterns must consist of more than 16 personality types. In most cases, the former.

Believe it or not most people are around that divide in T/F etc. not at the extremes. This is a major critism of MBTi. In this sense the x which I've seen used quite a bit, whether it was in the original or not, seems to serve a purpose in that it increases the accuracy of the description. I know it is inconsistent with functions, but so are most people beyond the secondary function. Once a boat has enough leaks, it's pointless being anal about one or two.

In other words, If I'm understanding you correctly, my answer is: this problem is an illusion and is not the main fault of MBTI.

Maybe. I was annoyed that your first assumption was ignorance rather than looking at different understanding of concepts or looking for joint enlightenment. Really that was the only reason I responded. If I'm being totally stupid I like to learn something from it to replace the stupidness with. I don't really mind losing the arguement if you teach me something new. If it's just how to stick to the rules which I've learn and unlearnt a million times, then I'm normally not sticking to them for a reason.

p.s. thanks for the more detailed reply.

Yes. Type Descriptions exist for simplification. Therefore, unwise to significantly rely on.


It serves as a medium of misunderstanding.

Already covered.
 

Craft

Probably Most Brilliant
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
1,221
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
5w7
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Agree with this. MBTi is not the be all and end all of anything, but neither was my post. I was just offering one or two suggestions and throwing out some anecdotal stuff from what I'd done. The OP was wondering about MBTi, so that was my focus.

As above, why are omissions in a single post of a thread relevant. Can I chat and offer a little or is there a law which enforces complete descriptions of everything at all times?

Indeed. Perhaps I should not have worked on this basis. Either way, there is still the "X" possibility, you incorrectly advised.

Cognitive functions, like MBTi, have something to add to a persons understanding, but are also a distortion of it (IMO). No method of typology is superior to in depth study of one's self, and inserting self understanding into the structure of any typological theory would probably be detrimental both to one's objectivity and scientific approach.
Perhaps.


See plural. If you read enough descriptions and see enough members of a type you gain some understanding of which traits are persistent in the bigger picture. It is not the best method, but it can give a person a start, where theory can often be difficult to translate to an understanding of what one with those traits is really like. (see half the threads on TC)
Indeed.


I disagree that X=Y/Z, so the rest is irrelevant. There is little to no evidence that type can predict anything in reality, let alone reality itself.
I disagree. Temperament plays a significant role in decisions and behaviors.


Believe it or not most people are around that divide in T/F etc. not at the extremes. This is a major critism of MBTi.
This is not "criticism" because Cognitive Functions is included in MBTI[not the simple one]. This "equilibrium" is expected and within the calculation.

In this sense the x which I've seen used quite a bit, whether it was in the original or not, seems to serve a purpose in that it increases the accuracy of the description.
In what way?

I know it is inconsistent with functions, but so are most people beyond the secondary function. Once a boat has enough leaks, it's pointless being anal about one or two.
I do not understand the bolded parts. Most people in the secondary function are inconsistent?

Maybe. I was annoyed that your first assumption was ignorance rather than looking at different understanding of concepts or looking for joint enlightenment. Really that was the only reason I responded. If I'm being totally stupid I like to learn something from it to replace the stupidness with. I don't really mind losing the arguement if you teach me something new. If it's just how to stick to the rules which I've learn and unlearnt a million times, then I'm normally not sticking to them for a reason.
I actually still believe in your ignorance.
 

BlueScreen

Fail 2.0
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
2,668
MBTI Type
YMCA
I disagree. Temperament plays a significant role in decisions and behaviors.

I have a problem with this statement because it suggests that personality has a dependence on temperament, when temperament is a tool developed to try to understand personality. You've assumed that a theory is a reality.

This is not "criticism" because Cognitive Functions is included in MBTI[not the simple one]. This "equilibrium" is expected and within the calculation.

Yes, but the suggestion that a person is clearly one or the other doesn't really fit with this distribution. It more suggests people tend to be a mix.

In what way?

In that assuming one is part of the extreme and searching for careers in the area of only one type is less satisfactory for some people than looking at careers that overlap the two types they have covered with the X.


I do not understand the bolded parts. Most people in the secondary function are inconsistent?

Beyond the secondary function, ie. tertiary onward, people don't fit the regular option for a type as often. There are 16 types, which account for the possible permutations of the first two functions.

I actually still believe in your ignorance.

:)
 
Top