[MBTI General] NF and NT... drawn together like moth to flame

[Nameless]

Okay, I've always been kind of confused about this...if you read all of the ENFP profiles (or those of any type) they always say your "match" is your opposite...ISTJ, or whatever. But I never find myself attracted to my complete opposite...it's more like the NF-NT thing...

So why do personality profiles suggest that you go find your opposite type? Is that for a team-based matchup, like that way you have everything covered and make up for the other person's weaknesses? They don't mean that complete opposites make good friends/relationships, do they?

 

[Tophsquatch]

Actually our match is the INTJ...the Mastermind. We need to share that intuition so we don't drive each other mad.

 

[Tallulah]

Okay, I've always been kind of confused about this...if you read all of the ENFP profiles (or those of any type) they always say your "match" is your opposite...ISTJ, or whatever. But I never find myself attracted to my complete opposite...it's more like the NF-NT thing...

So why do personality profiles suggest that you go find your opposite type? Is that for a team-based matchup, like that way you have everything covered and make up for the other person's weaknesses? They don't mean that complete opposites make good friends/relationships, do they?

I know I can't really relate at all to my complete opposite. It's like speaking another language. I would think you'd have to have someone that you felt understood you in order to be happy. At least I have to.

 

[Apollonian]

Actually our match is the INTJ...the Mastermind. We need to share that intuition so we don't drive each other mad.

*LAUGH* ... irony. Though it is likely the case that an ESFP would be far more annoying than an ENFP, ENFPs sharing intuition have the benefit of being able to develop a close kinship with the INTJ before undermining his phlegmatic peace of mind with random spontaneous insanity.

(Please note I am being satirical rather than literal and the above statements may not be representative of you.)

I would enjoy some more ENFP friends, but I am not sure I can ever imagine dating one successfully. ESFPs would be even worse, in my opinion, so I simply think that "those websites" which proclaim the opposites-attract theory are simply wrong or at the very least overgeneralizing.

 

[Tophsquatch]

*LAUGH* ... irony.
I would enjoy some more ENFP friends, but I am not sure I can ever imagine dating one successfully. ESFPs would be even worse, in my opinion, so I simply think that "those websites" which proclaim the opposites-attract theory are simply wrong or at the very least overgeneralizing.

There's a communication that the eN provides; namely we both communicate ideas, and abstractly at that...strangely enough, we intuitvely understand each other...even if the ideas we discuss come from two completely different sources (ENFP- Diplomacy; People and Emotion, INTJ- "Techie Stuff" or as I like to call it "everything else").

ENFPs are natural dipomats...yes we're crazy, but we control it more around you because you calm us and we can feel your mood. You, on the other hand, begin to enjoy our spontaneity and see that it doesn't undermind your "phlegmatic peace of mind" because we know you desire that "bubble" to maintain your sanity, so we don't try to invade it (we can read you from afar, so we don't need to). This is speaking very generally of course, but it's got a ring of truth to it.

Of course, immaturity, on our part, or yours will not speak greatly toward unity of any sort.

I got all of this from "Please Understand Me, II" by Dr. David Keirsley; he wrote the book based on Jung's, Isabella Myers' and her daughter Dr. Briggs' research. There was also a bit of "The Pygmalion Project, Vol. 3; Idealists" thrown in there...though I forget the author.

Please, let me know if you have any further insights Apollonian; I'd love to be proven wrong here. When I first learned my mate was an INTJ, I had the exact reaction you did.

 

[GZA]

I think the websites that theorize romance are not to be taken seriously. Not only because they are likely wrong due to the infinite number of variables in each person and how they interact with others, but also because it would be criminal to take such a beautiful thing like romance and ruin it with theory and systems. Bleh!

 

[Mr.Miagi]

I think the websites that theorize romance are not to be taken seriously. Not only because they are likely wrong due to the infinite number of variables in each person and how they interact with others, but also because it would be criminal to take such a beautiful thing like romance and ruin it with theory and systems. Bleh!

Romance can be analyzed, theorized, even predictied with a surprising amount of accuracy. In any event, romance should be open to analysis as everything else in this universe.

 

[alcea rosea]

I think the websites that theorize romance are not to be taken seriously. Not only because they are likely wrong due to the infinite number of variables in each person and how they interact with others, but also because it would be criminal to take such a beautiful thing like romance and ruin it with theory and systems. Bleh!

I agree. Beautifully described.

The other thing with the type matching theories is that by believing it 100% you limit down your options dramatically.

 

[cheap]

And such an NT and (concurring) NF response to GZA's post too. I don't really buy into the theory either, and I definitely don't want knowledge of type to influence any kind of biased early dismissal or clouding of fair judgement of a potential *gold* mate.

 

[Tophsquatch]

I go by the creedo that "maturity conquers difference", but truthfully I do believe that there are types that will do better together (generally) than others; it'll be an easier process of maturing together is what I'm saying and a more interesting one.

 

[BallentineChen]

Out of the rationals that I've met, I've only become close friends with INTJs. I think this has a lot to do with speaking a similar language and having the same orientation of world view. I dislike using functional analysis to describe relationships, but INFJs and INTJs are the only types with dominant Ni. This is not to say that sharing a dominant function is a requirement of meaningful friendship. I do believe relationships can be analyzed with functional analysis, but it requires full consideration to be considered to have any accuracy. Using the information I have now is like trying to tune a watch with a mallet and I believe the same goes for most discussions online concerning the topic. I believe it's more within our grasps to describe these relationships qualitatively.

I know two people are ENTP, one is my brother. We also speak a similar language, but I find that we reach the same approximate destinations in very different ways. Attempting to disregard any subjective memories I have of our conversations, he believes that there are no absolutes in the world (in terms of say "good" or "bad"). My worldview is different in that I believe the absolute is in the infinite forms and mixtures of, for example, "good" and "bad." (Bias disclosure: I believe my worldview is more reflective of the "organic" world we live in - the absence of "absolutes" is his worldview undermine his argument that there are "no" absolutes.) I also find that my brother is more interested in the art of debate (to the point of having an abrasive effect), where I'm more interested in it's application to the real world.

The nature of my relationship between INTJs and ENTPs are categorically different.

 

[Tophsquatch]

...

So you believe that the only absolute is that there are an infinite number of possibilities for everything?

I'm a believer in "functional absolutes"; meaning that if Lysol kills 99.99% of "bad" bacteria and works at peak efficiency 82.85% of the time, I'm going to draw a conclusion that my plate--which I've washed with Lysol--is clean enough to eat from with a reasonable assumption towards my health's security in doing so. There is, let's say for the sake of argument (I haven't crunched any numbers), a .2% chance that a dangerous bacterium is still on the plate after I've washed it in Lysol and a .0003% that it could cause a fatal infection; I'm still eating off that plate!

Though my guess is, it's much easier for a feeler to come to a "functional" conclusion than a thinker; I'm not certain on that though.

 

[BallentineChen]

Well first, I'd like to say that the word "absolute" is fixating in a way that isn't reflective of my worldview. I used it as an example to reveal differences in thinking. In practice, I think your "functional absolutes" has more application, versus applying to morals etc.

Also, the word "possibilities" is different from "forms" and "mixtures." Possibilities don't exist yet, and may never exist. My point is that my worldview is derived from what already exists, and how everything that exists is already intertwined with everything else. That's what I meant by organic.

What do you mean that feelers come more easily to a functional conclusion?

 

[nightning]

What do you mean that feelers come more easily to a functional conclusion?

*blinks* I don't agree with that either... When it comes to stuff, I take forever to decide what to do if I have to rely on Fe. Te is much quicker... "this is the most efficient way of handling it, and there's no point in wasting time"

My view point is much different from yours though. I see a lot of things based on possibilities. What is possible? How useful is that possibility? If I want it, I go for it. I think very little about the past unless it's useful for thinking about the future or bringing myself closer to my goals. Then there's reality, stuff right now. It's also nice to not think and just do stuff at times.

I suppose I sit in the camp of a "relative" viewpoint with sliding thresholds. Going with the Lysol example. 82.85% is good enough to exceed the threshold. So I say the plate is safe enough to eat from. Just as a side note though, good old soap and water does just as well to kill bacteria as Lysol...

 

[BallentineChen]

My view point is much different from yours though. I see a lot of things based on possibilities. What is possible? How useful is that possibility? If I want it, I go for it.

I guess I should elaborate what I mean by "worldview", which I mean to be "how I perceive the world to work." I take it that you mean it to be "how I see the world." If I interpreted the word in the same way you did, I would reach the same conclusion as you. I like to extract what is latent. However, sometimes I'm torn between efficiency and saving others from my rigor.

 

[Apollonian]

There's a communication that the eN provides; namely we both communicate ideas, and abstractly at that...strangely enough, we intuitvely understand each other...even if the ideas we discuss come from two completely different sources (ENFP- Diplomacy; People and Emotion, INTJ- "Techie Stuff" or as I like to call it "everything else").

ENFPs are natural dipomats...yes we're crazy, but we control it more around you because you calm us and we can feel your mood. You, on the other hand, begin to enjoy our spontaneity and see that it doesn't undermind your "phlegmatic peace of mind" because we know you desire that "bubble" to maintain your sanity, so we don't try to invade it (we can read you from afar, so we don't need to). This is speaking very generally of course, but it's got a ring of truth to it.

Of course, immaturity, on our part, or yours will not speak greatly toward unity of any sort.

I got all of this from "Please Understand Me, II" by Dr. David Keirsley; he wrote the book based on Jung's, Isabella Myers' and her daughter Dr. Briggs' research. There was also a bit of "The Pygmalion Project, Vol. 3; Idealists" thrown in there...though I forget the author.

Please, let me know if you have any further insights Apollonian; I'd love to be proven wrong here. When I first learned my mate was an INTJ, I had the exact reaction you did.

That is a pretty apt description, I imagine. I haven't known enough ENFPs personally to truly corroborate, but it makes sense. The one thing I would question is: what happens eventually when the INTJ wants someone to come inside the "bubble" as you say? Are ENFPs able to connect with an INTJs inner world, or does the INTJ+ENFP match only work as a concert of the diplomat and the analyst, each working in their distinctly separate realms?

 

[ByMySword]

NFs can understand NT's thoughts, and they think about similar things. They both have an intense drive for self-improvement. NTs can sort and mold the NF's ideas into something coherent (thank god) and NF can lavishly praise the NT, which the NT, suffering from low self-esteem and persistent self-doubt, eats up like Ivy's sandwiches.

Perfect statement.

I feel/think all of these things, but I'm not able to translate them into things that everyone else can understand. NTs are able to do that for me.

Interaction between me (NF) and friend (NT):

Me: I feel/think incoherent blah blah blah blahs.

NT: Oh so you feel/think coherent blah blah blah blahs.

Me: YES!!!!! Thank you!!!!!! You understand and are able to put it in a better way.

NT: No problem.

 

[Domino]

NF(me): I'm so upset. There's t...

NT: Who ever it is, I can make them disappear. I don't even have to use a canal.

NF: You know just what to say. I love you.

NT: I know. I love me too.

The end

 

[Veneti]

I think NT and NFs meet up more simply because NT is more "male" and NF is more "female" in just straight out statistics. (Given that N is the biggest get together type trait).

N's are not that rare. Its about 30% of society.

NFs are not always the flame, its probably best if they are... but NF women can be pretty gah gah with really smart and successful NT guys.

 

[Veneti]

Actually our match is the INTJ...the Mastermind. We need to share that intuition so we don't drive each other mad.

Yes, basically keeping off each others patch while still working as a team and understanding things. Its that stable steady state environment.