There's no need to be heated about this...
Um, okay. Let me try to clarify. I was in a hurry when I wrote that last post, headed out the door for work.
In post No. 36 you say, "I personally prefer the clinical approach". Your approach in the OP, however, seemed decidedly un-clinical.
For example, in your OP you:
A) used rather strong language (didn't qualify your assertions) as though to make the point that hypocrisy is a central feature of those personality types.
B) You and Economica also supplied personal anecdotes about how those types had screwed you over, making the start of the thread seem whiny and vindictive on your part.
C) It seems to me that you didn't establish any context for your criticism of those personality types until late in the thread; thus the criticisms sounded like an airing of personal pet peeves. It's only in the last ten or so posts of the thread that you've put your criticisms in the context of weaknesses of personality types in general ("All types have their own pathology").
D) The OP specifically attempted to take a rather petty weakness (smoothness, glibness, and appearance of lack of sincerity) and spin it into a somewhat harsher deficiency (hypocrisy).
Now, having said all that, let me qualify my own criticisms of your posts by admitting the possibility that part of the problem may be on my side. For example, in the OP you did put your message in the context of another thread (the reference to the INTJ thread), and I didn't bother to read the other thread in its entirety. And my own accusation of "vindictiveness" is inevitably a judgment call on my side.
Nonetheless, in such threads as yours I would prefer to see the standard qualifiers, disclaimers, and context, just to make things clear and reassure me that you're not airing a lot of personal grievances about a couple personality types you particularly dislike.
There are books and web sites on personality type that talk about the weaknesses of the various personality types, and they use a genuinely clinical approach. They use qualifiers to explain that the weaknesses of a given type aren't fatal flaws but rather immature manifestations of that personality type; they keep the descriptions impersonal; and they establish appropriate context by pointing out that all personality types have associated strengths and weaknesses, and that the weaknesses of one personality type are no more blameworthy than the weaknesses of other types.
Taking the example of ENFJs specifically: The book type "Type Talk" is clear about the weaknesses of ENFJs and how they can appear to other personality types:
...all ENFJs...are often criticized as insincere or superficial because of their smooth and glib way with words.
But the book "Type Talk" doesn't try to spin that weakness into "hypocrisy." In fact, the book does quite the opposite:
ENFJs may respond to such criticism with incredulity, often followed by depression and self-doubt, because their sincerity and concern are their driving force and motivation.
Similarly, the web site PersonalityPage.com also justifies the ENFJs weaknesses by pointing out how they spring from the ENFJs strengths and good intentions, rather than merely dismissing them as "hypocrisy."
ENFJ Personal Growth
For my own part, in my earlier posts in this thread I too tried to show that I see ENFJ weaknesses as immaturity at worst, and ultimately as outgrowths of their positive intentions and strengths (their organizational skills).
Hell, as an INFP I tend to admire ENFJs. We're both dominant Feelers, so I'm interested in what ENFJs do with their F. ENFJs use their F as a tool to organize their environment and hence are very vocal with their F; but because of their J, they also put limits on how much they are committed by their F. Hence, they can use expressions of emotion but still set limits on how much nurturing and support they are required to give as a result of their emotional commitments. I think that's pretty neat. As an INFP, I frequently get led by the nose by my feelings to my own detriment. Without any J boundaries to help me set limits, I have a tendency to over-commit emotionally to the point of ruining my own life. I sometimes don't know how much I'm committed to a course of action by my expressions of emotions. So I can learn something from the ENFJs: their ability to set limits; their natural sense of a given emotion and how much commitment it may entail.
I can make the same argument about ENFPs. That is, what they do may seem strange; but it springs from strength and good intention as much as weakness, and it may even serve as a positive example for other types. IOW, I think it's naive at best and vindictive at worst to attribute the worst possible motives ("hypocrisy") to ENFPs.
In sum, I'm all in favor of some genuinely thoughtful discussion about the negatives of the various personality types. I think it's fair game if done properly, and I think everyone could learn from it. But I would prefer that it be done in the context of the standard qualifiers, disclaimers, and context, (and without trying to spin petty weaknesses into harsher deficiencies). That would help make things clearer and reassure everyone that we're not airing a lot of personal grievances about personality types that we particularly dislike.
Oh well, I'm done with this thread. I've given it more time than it deserves. By the way, I'm not trying to bully you and Economica into changing your point of view. Rather, I'm responding to Economica's pleas for clarification (for example, post 27) and trying to show why I'm taking a rather unyielding position on this issue. I want to show that IMO there are some rather important principles at stake; hopefully I'm not just being a stick-in-the-mud.
FL