[MBTI General] Biggest differnce between ESFJ and ENFJ

[Tilt]

But that's precisely my point. You make definitive statements regarding your own theories and typings, while simultaneously adjusting your methodologies and typings even within the same thread. So you are like everyone else on typ-c in that respect. Why you believe your own typings to therefore be taken any more seriously than anyone elses is what baffles ME, given this fact.




Don't make hasty assumptions. I know quite a lot about typology, it's just I am many years ahead of you, in the sense that I've scrapped much of it as nonsense / and/or know I in fact cannot possibly make definitive statements. I could deconstruct lots of your own statements and point out various things you are not considering, but I have no desire to nor energy nor do I see any point whatsoever in doing so. Thus, my earlier point on there being too big of a gap in where each of us is for me to want to bridge. Our ideas, foundationally, are starting from very different points. That's all I really want to say about it.

I agree. Plus all this stuff seems to be a side tangent to what the OP actually asked. Does anyone else actually have any opinions regarding the differences between ESFJ and ENFJ? Lol

 

[1487610420]

Correct. Very few people know how to type.



Likely to be more accurate than most.



No it hasn't? What are you talking about?



I'm good at spotting patterns and determining how likely something is to be true.



You're pointing to revision of typings and methodologies as a... flaw? That baffles me.

If you're criticising me for not having a 100% hitrate with typings, then find me a single person who does have a nearly 100% hitrate.

You can't, because such a person doesn't exist. (Am I wrong about that?)


[MENTION=10808]bechimo[/MENTION] [MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] [MENTION=195]Jaguar[/MENTION] As far as I am aware, none of you have made any relevant contributions to the field of typology, and you don't understand the subject well enough to make valid judgments about the validity of novel approaches.

So, your critiques of my approach/approaches are irrelevant.

You can make claims to the effect of "we don't know for certain if you're correct" which is fine. I'm more aiming my message at people who are making an active effort to understand how type works, to get momentum going with the endeavour.

It's not a proven science, but do we have anything better? If you're aware of better approaches I'd like to hear them, but like I said I don't think any of you understand what you're talking about well enough to determine which approaches do or don't have merit.

One noticeable and quasi amusing thing that consistently shows up on this forum is the correlation between sx-doms and the know-it-all arrogance they display.

 

[Tater]

ESFJ is prudish incel bait with uselessly frilly pillows.

ENFJ is visionary coach with social finesse.

 

[neko 4]

I don't buy that personality runs in families. There is no fucking way I'm not an INFJ or that my sister isn't an ESFJ. We both have studied ourselves well.

 

[Tilt]

I don't buy that personality runs in families. There is no fucking way I'm not an INFJ or that my sister isn't an ESFJ. We both have studied ourselves well.

For 2w3 ESFJ, I would guess that your sister is really good at picking up on exactly what you need to make you feel physically comfortable and at home when you hang out with her.

The 2w3 ENFJ friend would be quite good at sussing out emotional discomfort and talking things out and figuring out what's under the surface.

 

[Pionart]

But that's precisely my point. You make definitive statements regarding your own theories and typings, while simultaneously adjusting your methodologies and typings even within the same thread. So you are like everyone else on typ-c in that respect. Why you believe your own typings to therefore be taken any more seriously than anyone elses is what baffles ME, given this fact.




Don't make hasty assumptions. I know quite a lot about typology, it's just I am many years ahead of you, in the sense that I've scrapped much of it as nonsense / and/or know I in fact cannot possibly make definitive statements. I could deconstruct lots of your own statements and point out various things you are not considering, but I have no desire to nor energy nor do I see any point whatsoever in doing so. Thus, my earlier point on there being too big of a gap in where each of us is for me to want to bridge. Our ideas, foundationally, are starting from very different points. That's all I really want to say about it.

Uh, I generally don't make definitive statements about my typings. You're wrong about that. I don't really care if people accept my typings or not, I just want a discussion that gets to the truth.

You're only years ahead of me in terms of time. The point still stands that you've yet to show me a single contribution that you've made to the field of typology, while disparaging what I've done for the field without giving it due consideration.

If you have knowledge about typology, don't hide it. I quite clearly want to understand the truth of this system and if you understand it as well as you do you're doing an injustice by refusing to speak.

As it stands I can only gather that you don't really know that much beyond learning the currently available theories and then scrapping them, which isn't impressive.

But if no one's bothering to try and understand what I'm saying and perhaps show why I'm wrong, what can I do but assume that I'm likely right?

Your statement that I am definitive is mostly incorrect because of how open I am to correction, but the correction has to actually be valid. So...

I don't know, I don't actually think you do know what you're talking about, so you can feel free to just not continue the discussion, there probably really wouldn't be a point.

 

[cascadeco]

Uh, I generally don't make definitive statements about my typings. You're wrong about that. I don't really care if people accept my typings or not, I just want a discussion that gets to the truth.

You're only years ahead of me in terms of time. The point still stands that you've yet to show me a single contribution that you've made to the field of typology, while disparaging what I've done for the field without giving it due consideration.

If you have knowledge about typology, don't hide it. I quite clearly want to understand the truth of this system and if you understand it as well as you do you're doing an injustice by refusing to speak.

As it stands I can only gather that you don't really know that much beyond learning the currently available theories and then scrapping them, which isn't impressive.

But if no one's bothering to try and understand what I'm saying and perhaps show why I'm wrong, what can I do but assume that I'm likely right?

Your statement that I am definitive is mostly incorrect because of how open I am to correction, but the correction has to actually be valid. So...

I don't know, I don't actually think you do know what you're talking about, so you can feel free to just not continue the discussion, there probably really wouldn't be a point.

Agreed, to your last comment.

 

[Pionart]

I don't buy that personality runs in families. There is no fucking way I'm not an INFJ or that my sister isn't an ESFJ. We both have studied ourselves well.

Even if type runs in families, you could still be an INFJ and your sister an ESFJ.

I skimmed through your posts and you don't sound like an INFJ though.

 

[Pionart]

Difference between ENFJ and ESFJ in terms of top two functions:

Both the Fe dominant types are fundamentally concerned with interacting with others. Their thoughts frequently take the form of an imagined interaction. The difference is that ENFJ's interactions are focused on elucidating a new concept. It is not bound by what has come before but is a gradual process of uncovering. The ESFJ on the other hand generally makes reference to details from the past in its interaction, perhaps using the discussion to springboard an analysis of a past event, or go back over an old conversation, or alternatively to establish the formation of new details.

So Fe with Ni focuses its interactions on a developing pattern, an evolving way of thinking, and Fe with Si focuses its interactions on reviewing of the past and preparation, being focused on details.

 

[rav3n]

The reference point is the future for Ni (outcome and probability focused) and the past for Si (concrete tried and true). So an ENFJ will look to the outcome of social interactions, premised on a probability analysis of actions. An ESFJ will look to whether or not their immediate social interaction meets their past experiences and/or accepted historical axioms like traditions and etiquette. The two are social harmony focused so that can make it difficult to differentiate so one of the quickest ways to type them is how they think and behave under stress. ESFJs will come across as wonky ENTPs and ENFJs, wonky ESTPs.

 

[Pionart]

The reference point is the future for Ni (outcome and probability focused) and the past for Si (concrete tried and true).

Note however that Ni can focus on the past and Si can focus on the future. They correlate with those concepts, but the more fundamental division is abstract/speculative vs concrete/definitive.

So Ni could try and perceive patterns that have manifested in the past, and Si could think of a specific event that is going to happen in the future.

e.g. Ni "there seems to have been a developing trend of [X] in my life, which may lead to [Y]"
e.g. Si "I'm going to a party next saturday, and I have to buy [A, B and C] from the shops"

(pardon if I'm oversimplifying Si in that description)

Si also speaks of something similar to trends in a "such is life" kind of manner; forming a template to see life through.

 

[Jaguar]

I skimmed through your posts and you don't sound like an INFJ though.

Someone could say the same of you:

I've already started posting but here's an intro thread.

I am an introverted sensation type.

I like things that are related to numbers and have lots of parts to memorise.

I am learning to overcome depressive and other negative thinking styles.

I say very little, except perhaps online, so you won't notice that as much.

I am awesome.

Ty

I can see ISTJ 9 for myself.

 

[Pionart]

Someone could say the same of you:

Are you going to make meaningful contributions or just attack me?

 

[Jaguar]

Are you going to make meaningful contributions or just attack me?

Red herring. Get your own type nailed down before telling other people in this thread they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[rav3n]

Note however that Ni can focus on the past and Si can focus on the future. They correlate with those concepts, but the more fundamental division is abstract/speculative vs concrete/definitive.

So Ni could try and perceive patterns that have manifested in the past, and Si could think of a specific event that is going to happen in the future.

e.g. Ni "there seems to have been a developing trend of [X] in my life, which may lead to [Y]"
e.g. Si "I'm going to a party next saturday, and I have to buy [A, B and C] from the shops"

(pardon if I'm oversimplifying Si in that description)

Si also speaks of something similar to trends in a "such is life" kind of manner; forming a template to see life through.

Si would look to what has been done in the past (conventional wisdoms) and consider that their template for the future. Ni delves into the past but more for data points to add to their other data points, to create their own plan for the future.

 

[Pionart]

Si would look to what has been done in the past (conventional wisdoms) and consider that their template for the future. Ni delves into the past but more for data points to add to their other data points, to create their own plan for the future.

Generally speaking, that's true.

 

[Pionart]

Red herring. Get your own type nailed down before telling other people in this thread they don't know what they're talking about.

"Get your own type nailed down" - I have though. You're referring to something I said years ago.

It seems strange that you claim to be an ENTJ though when the most prominent function I see in you is Si.

 

[Jaguar]

"Get your own type nailed down" - I have though. You're referring to something I said years ago.

It seems strange that you claim to be an ENTJ though when the most prominent function I see in you is Si.

I'd be bankrupt. Nice try.

 

[Pionart]

I'd be bankrupt. Nice try.

I can't make sense of this comment.

 

[Jaguar]

I can't make sense of this comment.

I believe that.