Maybe it's that I come from an (I don't know how to put this either, at all) authoritative (though I'm not authority) perspective, and so often what I say happens to align with each other and with the mods.
I found the ENFJ part.
Originally Posted by EJCC
I'd be interested to know this too!
If 3 influence adds a polished, "perfect" flavor to the behaviors linked to your core motivations, then maybe 2 adds an charming, attractive flavor? I can definitely see that with my 7ness, where I'm playful and adventurous but with a layer of lovable glazed on top.
1) Watch it and you will have an idea.
2) How do we define people's thought processes accurately into 16 groups anyway? We have ideas and concepts based upon Typologists writings, but everyone is unique. People have best fits, but will never completely fit the types functional uses. Some people will be ISTPs, but use Se over Ti a good few times. Some people get stuck in loops. Some people are trapped in inferior functions etc. Enneagram types influence functional usage also. Jobs too. People have an idea of a best fit, but they will never truly be an ISTP exactly.
My immediate response was kind of telling, in terms of the difference to stated SJ approach:
I note that as long as the practice looks reasonably consistent with what makes sense to me, then I'm willing to go with "They've got experience/training I don't have -> trust their expertise." And don't demand I understand all the details.
The more that the behavior/practice seems counter-intuitive and doesn't seem to make sense to me, the more I challenge it until I either finally understand their approach to be correct or I jettison it as unfounded.
I'm usually asking for "pattern" confirmation versus lots of unconnected data points; does their expertise conform to what seems to be a reasonable data pattern or is it inconsistent? If that latter, then examine more close / learn the principles on which their expertise is based to see if I can find a match.
I wasn't talking about your understanding, I was talking about time and understanding. One can understand X in a fraction of the time of another. Time is irrelevant. Doing something over a long period of time does not guarantee understanding of X or quality of output. If one dances for 20 years and another for 5, does 20 automatically make the person "better"? No. That person can still dance like a drunken rabbit, even after 20 years.
I think the idea of "scientific rigorousness" as it applies to something as effectively hand wave-y as typology is absurd. In fact, I'd argue that attempts to quantify what systems like MBTI, enneagram or any of the others mean to capture is actually limiting. No matter how fancy you get with your analysis, you're still effectively dealing with a subjective perception of someone else's subjective experience.
But I don't necessarily fault these systems for that lack. The value of typology to me has always resided in the fact that it provides alternate conceptions for how to understand another person beyond my baseline experience. The idea of typology as a framework for greater empathy, mutual understanding and personal insight is infinitely more compelling to me than the idea that I had stumbled upon some ironclad taxonomy for all people everywhere. Type is an entry point for something infinitely more vivid and mysterious than you'd hope could be captured by any model or dataset.
Talking about type meaningfully is less a Ni/Se thing vs Ne/Si thing to me, but rather a Ti thing. It's clarifying definitions or the model you're working from when you're referencing a certain type, so people know where you're coming from. That's the best I think anyone can do with something this fundamentallly subjective.