[Type 4] ESFP 4s

[HongDou]

I guess Fi can be the rich source of this feeling "something is missing" ... I think Taylor Momsen is ESFP 4. Ouch the girl who does the interview is so terrible, but nevermind it's not the point ...

she seems cool. she certainly moves around a lot like an ExxP

 

[Sunny Ghost]

Are you sure he's not a 6? And if so, what differentiates him from 6s (particularly of the ESFP variety)?

I don't know if I know any ESFP 6's, so I have no comparison. However, there is nothing very 6 about my friend. He strikes me as more of the heart triad, maybe gut, not much of the head triad. I could be wrong, as I'm not as good at deciphering other's enneatypes. But my impression has always been ESFP 4 for this particular friend.

 

[Kierva]

Marc seems rather genuine to me.

He's very precise with his words, never stumbles or tries to find the right words.

You look at his designs as well; very clean and simple, but bold.

 

[small.wonder]

I think many people are far too eager to stretch the bounds of what the less populous types can consist of (correlation-wise that is). Correlation data started out as saying 4 could only be INFP or INFJ, then over time this grew to include the other types already mentioned on this thread. The current correlation data available on the internet now says that basically any MBTI type can be any Enneagram type, which I largely disagree with.

Not only 4 suffers this, but 5 and 8 specifically as well. If in truth, those types are the least populous would they not also contain the least variety of MBTI types? Just as it makes sense for type 6, if the most populous, to contain the largest variety of MBTI types within it'self. In my opinion, the most uncommon types (8, 4 and 5) should only contain 2 or 3 (at most) varieties of MBTI types. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I do think it's a valid thought.

 

[skylights]

I think many people are far too eager to stretch the bounds of what the less populous types can consist of (correlation-wise that is). Correlation data started out as saying 4 could only be INFP or INFJ, then over time this grew to include the other types already mentioned on this thread. The current correlation data available on the internet now says that basically any MBTI type can be any Enneagram type, which I largely disagree with.

Not only 4 suffers this, but 5 and 8 specifically as well. If in truth, those types are the least populous would they not also contain the least variety of MBTI types? Just as it makes sense for type 6, if the most populous, to contain the largest variety of MBTI types within it'self. In my opinion, the most uncommon types (8, 4 and 5) should only contain 2 or 3 (at most) varieties of MBTI types. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I do think it's a valid thought.

While it would make sense that a more populous type would tend to have more variety within it, the relationships between MBTI and enneagram and population are all fairly complex, so there may be some variation based on correlation tendency - for example 1 typically correlating to more MBTI types than 4, though both tend to be less common types. 8 seems to occur across extraverted types minus ExFJs. Undoubtedly many combinations are highly unlikely, and it is prudent to assume up front that one does not have an unusual type combination until there is sufficient evidence, if not simply for the sake of statistics then especially since newcomers to any subject are likely to generalize and misunderstand at first.

At the same time, I have yet to see a solid argument for completely ruling out the possibility of the less popular MBTI-enneagram type combinations. Because they measure two different variables - patterns of perception and judgment in cognition and strategies for ego protection, respectively - there is no obvious inherent reason why a certain quality on one plane would impact the other insofar as to make them mutually exclusive. The only way that could happen would be if cognition pattern or protection strategy ran up against one another, making it impossible for the other to successfully function. A combination that comes to mind would be ESTx and 9, but then we consider that ISFPs are often 9s and INTPs are often 9s and ENFPs lay claim to a few as well, so no discrete preference - not E, S, or T - would rule 9 out. So really we could only make that judgment if there were something about the holistic type that runs up against the enneatype (or vice versa), and I think that would be very difficult to "prove" to any satisfactory degree. Unfortunately it strikes me as one of those gray areas we cannot really address, as it would require such a huge inductive leap.

My opinion as it currently stands is the best we can do is to say "# is most correlated with A, B, and F", and encourage people to consider those probabilities as much as possible before moving on to the more unusual combinations. But then there is the question of whether there ultimately is any such thing as "true type". Some go so far as to argue type is not static, and there is substantial evidence that Big 5 traits change according to predictable patterns over time, so it is not a completely unfounded argument, though it flies in the face of the conventions of personality psychology.

So, those are my mullings on the matter. Regardless, if you can provide a watertight logical argument for the impossibility of certain types, I am interested and would be impressed.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Marc Jacobs is 3w4, IMO, but probably ESFP, yeah.

I've sometimes thought Gwen Stefani could be ESFP or ENFP 3w4 and not ENFP 4w3 (as she's more often typed). ENFP still seems more likely because of her heavy use of metaphorical speech in regular conversation.

I think the problem with ESFP + 4 is that the 4 type has problems with sensing & thinking (and I don't mean those in the literal sense, but the Jungian sense; sensing). You can see how poor sensing & thinking leads to developing a 4 fix to begin with.

ISFP is se-aux & INTJ te-aux, which is why they're not as strange to be 4s than say, INTP or ESFP. They usually appear to be heavy on their tertiary though, and I'd guess most INTJ 4s are female.

ESFP e4 is not as absurd as some combos, but I'd still expect a very heavy 3 wing, and given that I do see each fix as part of a spectrum where the wings are melding together to form that particular fix, I think this makes sense.

I would look at 2 sx, 3w4, and 7 for ESFPs who seem 4ish on the surface first still. Some ESFP 8s may even be confused for 4s as people underestimate the emotionality of 8s (assuming they're all like ENTJs or something).

ESFP 6s tend to seem like very "regular" kind of people, almost like an SJ, oddly enough. I think my brother is ESFP 9w8 and he's more mellow than ESFPs are known to be, and could be confused with ISFP, but he was very much a Se-dom child & still shows stronger preference in sensing than feeling in his thinking.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Because they measure two different variables - patterns of perception and judgment in cognition and strategies for ego protection, respectively - there is no obvious inherent reason why a certain quality on one plane would impact the other insofar as to make them mutually exclusive.

Because they are not on separate planes or unrelated at all. They do not develop independently of each other.

Enneagram theory is not innate preferences as Jungian theory is usually presented. And they actually both type the same thing - the EGO and how it manifests as personality. They simply type different aspects of the ego, but not without considerable overlap.

Enneagram isn't really strategies for ego protection - the ego fixation IS the strategy for the protection of the self, but a person consciously confuses it for themself.
The Jungian aspect of the ego is what thinking style a person allows to consciously experience as "themselves". If you're looking at it more as cognitive preferences, then it even more strongly supports that any enneagram+Jungian combo would not make sense. This is because the enneagram fix we develop is supposed to be in relation to "messages" we receive about ourselves & reality during our very early, formative years. Why are certain experiences and emotions, etc, being interpreted a certain way? I can't see how it's not linked to those innate cognitive preferences.

Add to it that there is not even a clear line between cognition and emotion to begin with and it really becomes silly to suggest that Jungian type & enneagram type could form independently of each other.

Of course there is no water tight argument because these are philosophical theories to begin with, but within their systems and their definitions it doesn't make sense. It's not about proof, but consistency within the theory that reflects the consistency in the way humans develop psychologically, much as physically we develop similarly and certain deviations are regarded as abnormalities, not a "racial" variation or whatever.

I usually see strange enneagram & Jungian types put together when a type is over-simplified (or over-complicated, the new way people over type 6) or stereotypes are used to determine type. Many times I have observed on these kinds of forums people asserting they are a certain MBTI type & enneagram combo, a nonsensical combination, only to retype as something else later that makes way more sense. Someone once insisted their sibling was an ISTJ e4, only to later come back & agree they were a 1 disintegrating to 4 & that it made way more sense for them. I have no doubt that person looked genuinely 4ish at times.

 

[Stansmith]

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]

Lady Gaga comes to mind as a four-ish ESFP 6. The emotionally-damaged, impulsive, moody female ESFP sx6w7 is a pretty common character trope.

 

[small.wonder]

While it would make sense that a more populous type would tend to have more variety within it, the relationships between MBTI and enneagram and population are all fairly complex, so there may be some variation based on correlation tendency - for example 1 typically correlating to more MBTI types than 4, though both tend to be less common types. 8 seems to occur across extraverted types minus ExFJs. Undoubtedly many combinations are highly unlikely, and it is prudent to assume up front that one does not have an unusual type combination until there is sufficient evidence, if not simply for the sake of statistics then especially since newcomers to any subject are likely to generalize and misunderstand at first.

At the same time, I have yet to see a solid argument for completely ruling out the possibility of the less popular MBTI-enneagram type combinations. Because they measure two different variables - patterns of perception and judgment in cognition and strategies for ego protection, respectively - there is no obvious inherent reason why a certain quality on one plane would impact the other insofar as to make them mutually exclusive. The only way that could happen would be if cognition pattern or protection strategy ran up against one another, making it impossible for the other to successfully function. A combination that comes to mind would be ESTx and 9, but then we consider that ISFPs are often 9s and INTPs are often 9s and ENFPs lay claim to a few as well, so no discrete preference - not E, S, or T - would rule 9 out. So really we could only make that judgment if there were something about the holistic type that runs up against the enneatype (or vice versa), and I think that would be very difficult to "prove" to any satisfactory degree. Unfortunately it strikes me as one of those gray areas we cannot really address, as it would require such a huge inductive leap.

My opinion as it currently stands is the best we can do is to say "# is most correlated with A, B, and F", and encourage people to consider those probabilities as much as possible before moving on to the more unusual combinations. But then there is the question of whether there ultimately is any such thing as "true type". Some go so far as to argue type is not static, and there is substantial evidence that Big 5 traits change according to predictable patterns over time, so it is not a completely unfounded argument, though it flies in the face of the conventions of personality psychology.

So, those are my mullings on the matter. Regardless, if you can provide a watertight logical argument for the impossibility of certain types, I am interested and would be impressed.

You are so straight-forward and respectful at the same time, I forgot how much I enjoy communicating with you. I love me some people who can disagree without making it personal.

Yes, a lot of what I've read about correlation follows your "# is most correlated with A, B and F" theory, but with functions instead of MBTI letters like T, F or N. A lot of that seemed sound to me, but even those theories rule out a lot of type combinations I've seen people claim. I don't have enough understanding about Meyers Briggs to formulate the argument you are requesting, thought I do have thoughts about it.

I also think [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] is definitely the person to talk to about the subject.

 

[OrangeAppled]

[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION]

Lady Gaga comes to mind as a four-ish ESFP 6. The emotionally-damaged, impulsive, moody female ESFP sx6w7 is a pretty common character trope.

I think she's a 3w4 & xNFJ - very wannabe SP, but more NFy in her thinking (if you read interviews). I don't know why she is typed as 6. A good example of over-typing of 6 for people... maybe her image is meant to look ESFP e6 though.

But that's a side point....

 

[Azure Flame]

I think many people are far too eager to stretch the bounds of what the less populous types can consist of (correlation-wise that is). Correlation data started out as saying 4 could only be INFP or INFJ, then over time this grew to include the other types already mentioned on this thread. The current correlation data available on the internet now says that basically any MBTI type can be any Enneagram type, which I largely disagree with.

Not only 4 suffers this, but 5 and 8 specifically as well. If in truth, those types are the least populous would they not also contain the least variety of MBTI types? Just as it makes sense for type 6, if the most populous, to contain the largest variety of MBTI types within it'self. In my opinion, the most uncommon types (8, 4 and 5) should only contain 2 or 3 (at most) varieties of MBTI types. Obviously this is just my opinion, but I do think it's a valid thought.

I recently had a confirmed INFJ 8 ask me "where can I meet an ESTP 4?"

mind blown.

shit, sometimes I wonder if I'm estp 4... I'm all over the damn place and there are times where I can't take care of my damn self. Sometimes 5 feels like my disintegration point, other times 2, other times I act 1'ish.

WOOO FUCK SELF AWARENESS

*punts a soccer ball*

 

[small.wonder]

@DJArendee I've never thought of you as 4ish, but I do remember you mentioning this before. 4's are usually defined by a self awareness that is so keen that it cripples us-- that's true for myself. 4 and 8 do feel similar (intense or Sx if you will), but the only case of anyone actually mistyping between the two that I know of is [MENTION=17911]Animal[/MENTION]. In truth though I personally don't think you are a 4.

I think what you are describing may be the common (but giant) problem of "shopping too long". It's like finding a car that fits all of your requirements and continuing to look anyway, out of curiosity or perfectionism...though for you (because of your wing) it's probably the 7 desire to try and see and experience every possible option out there. Gluttony and indecision basically. I've been doing an (art/research) project for the past couple months on Enneagram, and my 7's talked a lot about this quality. Always needing the next thing or a new thing, not ever wanting to miss out on something that might be better or more true. Do you think perhaps that's why you identify w/ 4? Or maybe it's just because you really like 4's (as you've always expressed), or have a 4 in your tritype. 874 that would make you then, yes?

Another question: is it people (like this "INFJ 8") who have strange type combinations that make you question your own typing? If so, I do think it's the 7 thing. It's like now that you've seen someone type in an obscure way, you see it as an option you haven't visited yet. Thoughts?

 

[Animal]

@DJArendee I've never thought of you as 4ish, but I do remember you mentioning this before. 4's are usually defined by a self awareness that is so keen that it cripples us-- that's true for myself. 4 and 8 do feel similar (intense or Sx if you will), but the only case of anyone actually mistyping between the two that I know of is [MENTION=17911]Animal[/MENTION].

Yeah- I have no comment on DJ's typing .. no strong opinion on most people unless I know them well. But to clarify, my case was also because I am a trauma-survivor and my trauma-reaction seemed like type 8 disintegration. In truth, it was type 4 with a flavor of type 2 power-hunger... but I just conflated my trauma-reaction and some aspects of my upbringing & other situational stuff, with my typing.

That being said, I've read that it's common for SX 4's to mistype as 8s. But like you, I'm the only one that I know of personally.

Edit: To add to this, my first fix is 8w7, and my next fix is 7... I'm not positive of the wing but 7w8 seems the stronger contender. My mistype was not a mistake made by me alone - it was my *third* estimation of my type, and by the time I typed at 8, many other people in my internet typology community as well as real life, had been suggesting type 8. I received a lot of 7 suggestions online as well, but no one in real life would take me for a 7.

So I would assume that while some SX4's might *feel* like an 8 description when they're lusty, they'd be more likely to be like an 8 in a more 'realistic' way if they are 8 fixed, and having another id-fix with an 8 wing doesn't hurt either.

 

[HongDou]

I think the problem with ESFP + 4 is that the 4 type has problems with sensing & thinking (and I don't mean those in the literal sense, but the Jungian sense; sensing). You can see how poor sensing & thinking leads to developing a 4 fix to begin with.

Hmm. I agree but I wonder why this is? Is it because 4 tends to feel ostracized from the world around them while sensing and thinking types seem to be much more grounded in reality and what makes logical sense?

ESFP e4 is not as absurd as some combos, but I'd still expect a very heavy 3 wing, and given that I do see each fix as part of a spectrum where the wings are melding together to form that particular fix, I think this makes sense.

I would look at 2 sx, 3w4, and 7 for ESFPs who seem 4ish on the surface first still. Some ESFP 8s may even be confused for 4s as people underestimate the emotionality of 8s (assuming they're all like ENTJs or something).

I agree with all this, it's definitely less common than the other combinations you listed, especially 2 and 7 since EFP types seem to be more geared towards positive outlook. Why specifically sx 2 though and not so or sp 2? But I do think it's something that could happen in the real world. Although I'm still unsure as to how they'd differ from NFP and NFJ 4s as well as its introverted counterpart. Because like you said, sensing isnt the 4's forte so I'm interested in seeing what a real sensing-dominant 4 would be like.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

I'm Ne-dom and 4w5. It was hard for me to determine that I was really

- an "extravert"
- a core 4
- not deluding myself

I'm an atypical version of each, and I don't know what my Ji is. I know 4s are supposed to be NFs, but the Ti/Fi dispute is far from clear according to current research.

But that's the final word.

I used to think there were correlations, and indeed there may be. It seems that there should be certain co-occurrences in nature. But it seems premature to rule out the idea that a 4 of either wing could ever possibly be an ESFP (or anything else). I don't really have that data, and neither does anyone else.

 

[Stansmith]

This is an ISFP 4, right?

 

[skylights]

First of all, my apologies for being so late in responding to this. I "lost" the thread when it slipped to my second, inaccessible Notifications page. Took me a while to find it - no wonder, as I don't come in the Type 4 forum often!

You are so straight-forward and respectful at the same time, I forgot how much I enjoy communicating with you. I love me some people who can disagree without making it personal.

Thank you for the compliment. Me too!

Yes, a lot of what I've read about correlation follows your "# is most correlated with A, B and F" theory, but with functions instead of MBTI letters like T, F or N. A lot of that seemed sound to me, but even those theories rule out a lot of type combinations I've seen people claim. I don't have enough understanding about Meyers Briggs to formulate the argument you are requesting, thought I do have thoughts about it.

I would certainly be interested to hear, if at any point you get to a place where they have crystallized enough to share

I also think @OrangeAppled is definitely the person to talk to about the subject.

Indeed!

Enneagram isn't really strategies for ego protection - the ego fixation IS the strategy for the protection of the self, but a person consciously confuses it for themself.

I was of the understanding that this was a matter of contention between theorists, with some believing that Enneatype is a descriptor of personality based on ego protection and others believing that it is only a descriptor of how we create and perpetuate suffering via fixation, with no relation to "true" personality. But for the same reasons you explained, I have a hard time seeing Enneatype as something divorced entirely from "true" personality, hence a person would not be wholly incorrect in seeing themself in their fixation. And so the wisdom of the Enneagram would be in understanding that it is a fixation and a perspective instead of a reality and a truth.

This is because the enneagram fix we develop is supposed to be in relation to "messages" we receive about ourselves & reality during our very early, formative years. Why are certain experiences and emotions, etc, being interpreted a certain way? I can't see how it's not linked to those innate cognitive preferences.

Add to it that there is not even a clear line between cognition and emotion to begin with and it really becomes silly to suggest that Jungian type & enneagram type could form independently of each other.

Oh, absolutely, I'm not denying that. Nothing occurs in a vaccuum, and certainly most people are going to be "normal" combinations. It is hard to judge the extent to which either is genetic or environmental, though as far as I see it MBTI probably has more of a genetic component while Enneagram is more environmental. I am certain that patterns of thinking defined by MBTI do impact Enneatype development, and Enneatype development probably also influences MBTI in return.

But at the same time, if we assume your premise is correct that certain types cannot be mutually inclusive, what are they, exactly, and why can they not exist? ISTJ e4, in the example you've given, but why? And which others, and why, exactly?

 

[Azure Flame]

@DJArendee I've never thought of you as 4ish, but I do remember you mentioning this before. 4's are usually defined by a self awareness that is so keen that it cripples us-- that's true for myself. 4 and 8 do feel similar (intense or Sx if you will), but the only case of anyone actually mistyping between the two that I know of is [MENTION=17911]Animal[/MENTION]. In truth though I personally don't think you are a 4.

I think what you are describing may be the common (but giant) problem of "shopping too long". It's like finding a car that fits all of your requirements and continuing to look anyway, out of curiosity or perfectionism...though for you (because of your wing) it's probably the 7 desire to try and see and experience every possible option out there. Gluttony and indecision basically. I've been doing an (art/research) project for the past couple months on Enneagram, and my 7's talked a lot about this quality. Always needing the next thing or a new thing, not ever wanting to miss out on something that might be better or more true. Do you think perhaps that's why you identify w/ 4? Or maybe it's just because you really like 4's (as you've always expressed), or have a 4 in your tritype. 874 that would make you then, yes?

Another question: is it people (like this "INFJ 8") who have strange type combinations that make you question your own typing? If so, I do think it's the 7 thing. It's like now that you've seen someone type in an obscure way, you see it as an option you haven't visited yet. Thoughts?

hmm... interesting. never thought about the crippling thing as 4ish. Ive always viewed that as 1ish.

I've thought about 4 being in my tritype over 3. The only thing I see applicable to 3 is my ambition. When I was rejected from being a pilot I was really sad "what will I be known for in the world?" So I had to sorta redefine what I would be known for. I think its more 4 related than 3 related though.

The 847 is the passionate, cutting edge, innovative, compassionate, freedom seeking, creative, non conformist focused on implementing and manifesting their original vision.

sounds like me

 

[Azure Flame]

This is an ISFP 4, right?

maybe, but not an sx 4. this is the epitome of ISFP 4

 

[small.wonder]

hmm... interesting. never thought about the crippling thing as 4ish. Ive always viewed that as 1ish.

The Type 4 Overveiw (I believe an excerpt from Personality Types) pretty well describes it like this: "Fours are the most self-aware of the types, and this is the basis of what is most positive and negative about them. The constant conflict we see in Fours is between their need to be aware of themselves, so they can find themselves, and, at the same time, their need to move beyond self-awareness, so they will not be trapped in self-consciousness. The tension between self-awareness and self-transcendence can be resolved in creativity. In the creative moment, healthy Fours harness their emotions without constricting them, not only producing something beautiful but discovering who they are..."

So we have this tendency to be overly self-aware to the point of being crippled by self consciousness or self loathing.

I've thought about 4 being in my tritype over 3. The only thing I see applicable to 3 is my ambition. When I was rejected from being a pilot I was really sad "what will I be known for in the world?" So I had to sorta redefine what I would be known for. I think its more 4 related than 3 related though.

I think you can attribute your ambition to 8 already, no need to find another source for that! Your reaction does sound 4 flavored because of your concern about identity. Interesting.