[MBTI General] Biggest differnce between ESFJ and ENFJ

[neko 4]

My sister is an ESFJ and one of my best friends is an ENFJ. They're both 2w3 and I'm wondering the biggest differences between those two MBTI types.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

My sister is an ESFJ and one of my best friends is an ENFJ. They're both 2w3 and I'm wondering the biggest differences between those two MBTI types.

Well, I feel like you'd know the differences if you were both confident and accurate in your typings of them.

I'm pretty convinced that most people don't excel at typing others and close the door on perception and receptivity prematurely once they decide on a type.

 

[Pionart]

Well, one is FeSiNeTi, the other is FeNiSeTi.

INFJ with ESFJ sister sounds unlikely. Type runs in families.

 

[cascadeco]

INFJ with ESFJ sister sounds unlikely. Type runs in families.

Why do you think that?

 

[Pionart]

Why do you think that?

I've heard that someone supposedly verified it,
and it seems to match my own experience,
for example it appears true of my own family
and furthermore makes sense in theory

 

[cascadeco]

I've heard that someone supposedly verified it,
and it seems to match my own experience,
for example it appears true of my own family
and furthermore makes sense in theory

Huh. So it's your theory and observation from your own family, which is a far cry from the bold definitive statement of 'Type Runs in Families'.

As for 'someone supposedly verifying it', that's pretty vague. Not only are there not 'proven' ways for determining someone is one and only one type (nor 100% definitive universally agreed upon ways of determining type), acting as if 'type' is genetically passed along - [edit: in an easy-to-map way, as obviously we inherit everything from our family, whether direct parents or traits that skip generations, or whatnot] - is an unsubstantiated leap -- it's not as if Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Si, Se, Te, and Ti are even 'real' entities let alone a combination of known 'real things' that can be or are mapped to specific genes. So there's no way a statement can be made that type therefore 'runs in families'.

 

[Pionart]

Huh. So it's your theory and observation from your own family, which is a far cry from the bold definitive statement of 'Type Runs in Families'.

As for 'someone supposedly verifying it', that's pretty vague. Not only are there not 'proven' ways for determining someone is one and only one type (nor 100% definitive universally agreed upon ways of determining type), acting as if 'type' is genetically passed along is an unsubstantiated leap -- it's not as if Fe, Fi, Ne, Ni, Si, Se, Te, and Ti are even 'real' entities let alone a combination of known 'real things' that can be or are mapped to specific genes. So there's no way a statement can be made that type therefore 'runs in families'.

That's how Ni works,
Strong speculations based on manifesting patterns,
These can be changed as time goes on,
Or strengthened in the same direction,
And I feel that the evidence is telling.

Type can be verified,
And functions are in a sense real,
As real as memory,
And with the makings of a scientific theory.

If you think the claim is unsubstantiated,
You'll find that all talk of type is,
But it is not unsubstantiated,
If you know how to read the signs.

 

[cascadeco]

That's how Ni works,
Strong speculations based on manifesting patterns,
These can be changed as time goes on,
Or strengthened in the same direction,
And I feel that the evidence is telling.

Type can be verified,
And functions are in a sense real,
As real as memory,
And with the makings of a scientific theory.

If you think the claim is unsubstantiated,
You'll find that all talk of type is,
But it is not unsubstantiated,
If you know how to read the signs.

I see. I don't have anything else to say here then; too vast a gap to want to try to bridge.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Well, one is FeSiNeTi, the other is FeNiSeTi.

INFJ with ESFJ sister sounds unlikely. Type runs in families.

Even if your theory is accurate, they could still be a copy of each parent since there are two types here.

 

[Pionart]

Even if your theory is accurate, they could still be a copy of each parent since there are two types here.

It's possible, just fairly unlikely.

I'll also add that the hereditariness of type is gender specific, so in this case it could for example be the two types of each grandmother.

 

[rav3n]

It's possible, just fairly unlikely.

I'll also add that the hereditariness of type is gender specific, so in this case it could for example be the two types of each grandmother.

This thread has a sample size of over 1000 responses. It doesn't align with your internal beliefs which haven't been proven.

What types are your family and friends?

What has been partially proven is that MBTI has a genetic component (twin studies) but this differs greatly from believing that MBTI types run in families.

 

[Tilt]

ESFJ (FeSi) - masters of the social script, roles, rules. Protectors of social protocol, practical caretakers (good at remembering people's unique practical needs)..like a nurse, homemaker, host, doctor, office manager.

ENFJ (FeNi) - masters of the long-term social implications of roles and rules. Caretakers of emotions and underlying psychological dynamics...like a mentor/life coach, therapist. Revisors of social protocol.

 

[Pionart]

This thread has a sample size of over 1000 responses. It doesn't align with your internal beliefs which haven't been proven.

What types are your family and friends?

What has been partially proven is that MBTI has a genetic component (twin studies) but this differs greatly from believing that MBTI types run in families.

The data in that thread is invalid because most people don't know how to type.

 

[rav3n]

The data in that thread is invalid because most people don't know how to type.

So 1000+ people don't know how to type and your beliefs which haven't been proven in any way are accurate? Considering how your methodology for typing people by voice has already been disproved, I'm uncertain how you believe yourself to be capable of accurately typing sufficient to arrive at your conclusions.

 

[cascadeco]

So 1000+ people don't know how to type and your beliefs which haven't been proven in any way are accurate? Considering how your methodology for typing people by voice has already been disproved, I'm uncertain how you believe yourself to be capable of accurately typing sufficient to arrive at your conclusions.

Not to mention the fact that he revises his own typings and methodologies. Thus, he's no different/ has the same susceptibilities as anyone else and those he is critiquing when it comes to typing and retyping.

https://www.typologycentral.com/for...967-typing-vocal-analysis-10.html#post3098936

 

[Jaguar]

.
Typing by vocal analysis. Ah, yes. And don't forget the urine color preference for each type.

Typewatching by Urine Color

 

[Pionart]

So 1000+ people don't know how to type

Correct. Very few people know how to type.

and your beliefs which haven't been proven in any way are accurate?

Likely to be more accurate than most.

Considering how your methodology for typing people by voice has already been disproved,

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

I'm uncertain how you believe yourself to be capable of accurately typing sufficient to arrive at your conclusions.

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

Not to mention the fact that he revises his own typings and methodologies. Thus, he's no different/ has the same susceptibilities as anyone else and those he is critiquing when it comes to typing and retyping.

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.

 

[Jaguar]

[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.

You joined in 2014. You're not aware. Enough said.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

It's possible, just fairly unlikely.

I'll also add that the hereditariness of type is gender specific, so in this case it could for example be the two types of each grandmother.

My sister is not an NFP. In fact, she seems to me to be an ISxJ. My mother is clearly an ENFP, as is my daughter (most likely at this point at least). You typed me as an INTJ, but my brother (who is my only full sibling) is probably an ESTP. Now, obviously if the genetics are that specific and narrow, then I cannot possibly be an INTJ, nor can my sister be an ISxJ because we have the same mother.

Genetics are rarely that black and white.

 

[cascadeco]

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?)

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.

[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.

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.