ESFP v. ENFP

[Little Linguist]

Hi folks,

Just out of curiosity, what are the major differences between an ESFP and an ENFP? If there is already a thread on this topic, could you please provide me with it? I am new here, so I am still getting used to everything.

Thanks in advance,

Carolyn

[CaptainChick]

This site may help

ESFP - ENFP

[booyalab]

For one, the ENFP will be much more interested in MBTI, enough to want to type everyone they know. The ESFP would only have a momentary interest at best, or they might say something about not wanting to put people in boxes.

[Little Linguist]

Originally Posted by booyalab

For one, the ENFP will be much more interested in MBTI, enough to want to type everyone they know. The ESFP would only have a momentary interest at best, or they might say something about not wanting to put people in boxes.

OH MY GOSH - yes!!! I have been fascinated with MBTI recently. I have tried to type my family, friends, and students. But not by handing out forms and saying - take this damn test!!!! I try to test myself to develop my understanding.

[CaptainChick]

Originally Posted by booyalab

For one, the ENFP will be much more interested in MBTI,

In general? Or compared to ESFP's?

Originally Posted by booyalab

For one, the ENFP will be much more interested in MBTI, enough to want to type everyone they know.

I don't know, but I, along with the other ENFP's on this forum don't seem to seek out typing everyone we know, but rather, we seem to be vaguely curious as to what types particular people we know, or closely know, happen to be.

[Little Linguist]

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

In general? Or compared to ESFP's?


I don't know, but I, along with the other ENFP's on this forum don't seem to seek out typing everyone we know, but rather, we seem to be vaguely curious as to what types particular people we know, or closely know, happen to be.

Well, I do not want to type everyone. Just people I deal with on a regular basis. It's a fascinating concept, and I am curious.

[booyalab]

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

In general? Or compared to ESFP's?

compared to ESFPs, obviously

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

I don't know, but I, along with the other ENFP's on this forum don't seem to seek out typing everyone we know, but rather, we seem to be vaguely curious as to what types particular people we know, or closely know, happen to be.

yeah I exaggerated... When I first learned about MBTI, I typed myself then sought to understand the system abstractly by reading everything I could find. But with the suspected ENFPs I've introduced it to, they immediately started trying to figure out the types of their family members and close friends. That seemed more important to them than being absolutely sure of their own type and understanding all the intricacies.

[CaptainChick]

Originally Posted by booyalab

yeah I exaggerated... When I first learned about MBTI, I typed myself then sought to understand the system abstractly by reading everything I could find. But with the suspected ENFPs I've introduced it to, they immediately started trying to figure out the types of their family members and close friends. That seemed more important to them than being absolutely sure of their own type and understanding all the intricacies.

Perhaps the suspected ENFP's weren't ENFP's at all?

I can only speak for my self and a few others, but when we took the test and read our personality profiles, including our many unique communication styles and experiential preferences, we were flabbergasted by how eerily spot on the the profile accurately portrayed and explained us, hell, I was at least!!!

[Little Linguist]

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

Perhaps the suspected ENFP's weren't ENFP's at all?

I can only speak for my self and a few others, but when we took the test and read our personality profiles, including our many unique communication styles and experiential preferences, we were flabbergasted by how eerily spot on the the profile accurately portrayed and explained us, hell, I was at least!!!

Captain Chick,

Yes, I agree. I guess that is why I became so fascinated by the whole thing.

[Eric B]

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

This site may help

ESFP - ENFP

Berens broke it down really well.
Since I became familar with temperament through the Galenic names first, I find a way to simplify them is that ESFP is "Sanguine" in both social skills (Interactions Style) and leadership skills (conation, or what Keirsey called "temperament") and is thus the "pure Sanguine" (like Tim LaHaye or the Catholic "4-marks" system). ENFP is Sanguine socially also, but Phlegmatic in leadership. Now, Keirsey said the temperament was Choleric, but he defined that by a different criterion. Phlegmatic is the one with the "diplomatic skills set" like the NF is described. Phlegmatic may be the slow less energetic one and they may not seem "hyperesthetic" like the character role of Kretschmer that Keirsey identified with NF, but they do still have the Interaction Style driving their energy.
It used to be hard to tell when I first compared the two types, but that is the primary difference (pragmatic vs. cooperative, and concrete vs abstract).

People say that Lorelai of Gilmore girls is ENFP, and my wife is a big fan of that show, and always said that she seems to be Sanguine/Phlegmatic. Rachael Ray in contrast may be more of a pure Sanguine. (ESFP)

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

Originally Posted by booyalab
yeah I exaggerated... When I first learned about MBTI, I typed myself then sought to understand the system abstractly by reading everything I could find. But with the suspected ENFPs I've introduced it to, they immediately started trying to figure out the types of their family members and close friends. That seemed more important to them than being absolutely sure of their own type and understanding all the intricacies.

Perhaps the suspected ENFP's weren't ENFP's at all?

I can only speak for my self and a few others, but when we took the test and read our personality profiles, including our many unique communication styles and experiential preferences, we were flabbergasted by how eerily spot on the the profile accurately portrayed and explained us, hell, I was at least!!!

I learned about the five-temperament, three area system (FIRO-based and my avatar) first, and my interest in it only sparked off when my wife gave me my results, and then also tested her friends and my family, and it was "Wow! This stuff really explains us!". Then, I broke the theory down to understand it and also tried to figure out many other friends and acquaintances, who we were not able to test.
Then, when one of these friends introduces us to Keirsey II online, then I set out to figure that out, before trying to find out my own type. I came out as ENFJ (and J/P were tied at 5), but that did not sound like me at all. So I basically had to figure it out first, by seeing how it corresponds with the system we used, before I could decide on a type for myself. Once I did, I also figured that correlations would be useful for knowing the Galenic temperament of others whose type is known.

What I arrived at for myself was INTP, which really did sound like me. This was challenged, because some felt I was like an NFP type (inasmuch as I sound a bit like one from what booyalab described), but really understanding the functions better, it seemed my first suggestion was closer after all. Introverted, informing, pragmatic, structure-focused).