[ENFP] The Verbal Fireworks of the ENFP

[five sounds]

Yeah. I think Hitler was an NF gone evil. Look at how he motivated and influenced people and got them fired up about doing generally naughty and shitty things. Bad eggs exist in every type.

Lol yes, Hitler was a very naughty NF.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Lol yes, Hitler was a very naughty NF.

 

[Forever_Jung]

I agree, to an extent.

I agree in that ressentiment can have its purposes.

If that much inequality, that much injustice, is in existence, then the ressentiment should build up to such an extent, become such a pressure cooker, such a pot boiling over, that it forces those issues to be dealt with by those in power.

At the same time, though, sometimes the "solutions" offered (i.e., extremely high taxation, eliminating profit, etc) are such complete and total crap that, really, the effect of taking those actions in order to appease that ressentiment would actually end up being worse off for the system as a whole (including, likely, in the end, those with the ressentiment).

Not all inequality and not all injustice can feasibly be eliminated, and, at least with inequality, not all of it necessarily even should.

(That being said, I do find the trend of increased inequality since the early 70s in America to be problematic.)

(And universal healthcare is one prong amongst several [not all appeasing the same side of the equation - some go in the "opposite" direction, in order to increase competitiveness, and thus our economy/employment] that can be enacted to remedy our problems.)

Z, put aside the political specifics. No one here is claiming that Russell Brand should be our new world leader, and that he has devised a flawless political system. I made it a point to say verbal fireworks, in hopes that people would understand that I wanted to focus on the effect of his words, not critique the content. That's what's important when listening to Russell Brand. To get bogged down in the political nitty-gritty of this interview is to miss the point, even outside the context of my OP.

Brand did not go into that interview to espouse a specific solution to save the world, he was just defending himself against harshly framed questions. The exchange opens with Jeremy sneering at Russell for guesting-editing a political magazine. Russell kind of chuckles and straight-up admits he doesn't know very much about politics and that he accepted the job as editor out of sheer novelty. He really wasn't trying to cut a serious figure, and yet Paxton came after him pretty hard, and kept putting him down. No wonder Brand got so worked up, and vented his "ressentiment" (I don't like this word, unless I'm writing in French), Paxton was trivializing the validity of Brand's core values.

The interview wouldn't have been forced to get all politically specific if Paxton didn't come out and say: all your political beliefs are invalid because you don't vote. You don't like the political system--explain why and now construct a model for your ideal government. If you can't do that, you have no business guest-editing a political magazine. Paxton backed him into a corner.

I think Russell makes a good point when he says:

“Jeremy darling, don't ask me to sit here in a bloody hotel room and devise a global utopian system.”

I mean, most everyone would be hard-pressed to do so on the spot, especially if you didn't expect that to come up in the interview. And Russell, as he himself admitted, is not qualified to run the world and decide exactly how it's going to be run. He has no political experience and has no formal education beyond a high school diploma. He is merely giving a voice to the disillusioned, inarticulate masses, who don't have a platform to champion different leaders and alternative politics that might serve them better. And that is what ENFP's do best (Mostly the point of my OP). They aren't systems builders, they are powerful, captivating voices. As Jung put it, Ne-doms are "the natural champion of all minorities with a future".

It's easy to make someone look stupid by asking them to work within your limits. Brand's not going to look good if you ask him to play world leader, and it's a bit nutty to ask of him in the first place. Russell was speaking from a place of values and experience, not political science. Brand didn't frame the interview like that, Paxton did. To me, it was a power move, an attempt to humiliate and dismiss Russell, by rigging the conversational game. But really, by being so tough on him, it just made Brand look more credible.

 

[Amargith]

NFs are on this planet to champion causes and passionately spread the word to increase awareness so more handy and practical NTs, SJs and SPs can implement change and progress via innovation and reform. Not offering a feasible alternative doesn't necessarily mean we shouldn't listen to them, even if we don't always agree with them. We need passionate people to champion causes, even if they don't always offer facts and statistics so much as they do a passionate argument. ENFPs are humanity's cheerleaders, in a way. I mean that in a completely positive way and not in the stereotypically ditzy and shallow way we often associate with the word cheerleader.

It's true, many ENFPs are probably more informed and know more facts to back up his argument, but the fact that something gets him this emotionally fired up about something means he has every right to share that feeling with thw world, whether or not the world chooses to listen to him or shrug him off as another "childish" idealist ungrounded in reality.

I want to be an ENFP when I grow up, btw.

Which is why I think ENFPs make better "vision leaders"

They can get people passionate about something, because ENFPs' passion can be very infectious. Their ability to get people motivated and amped about a cause or task at hand is one of their best strengths, in my opinion.

Just don't always expect them to know every little detail or have a solution immediately sketched out unless they've come prepared. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Obama might be ENFx. I'm not going to get political but I've noticed this in his leadership style. Sometimes in press conferences he stammers and takes time to process questions before he answers, leading and doesn't always have the most detailed or sketched out solution. I've noticed that he will then become very passionate and say something like, "look, I just want to make sure we can get insurance to as many people as possible..." or "I get letters every day from people like Ruth in Arkansas who lost her insurance when she got laid off and couldn't get new coverage because her diabetes was considered a preexisting condition yadda yadda etc"

You can tell healthcare and certain issues really burn a fire inside of him.

He typically leaves the details and planning to his cabinet, policy people, allies in congress, etc, so he can take the role of motivator and champion.

Just an observation

Z, put aside the political specifics. No one here is claiming that Russell Brand should be our new world leader, and that he has devised a flawless political system. I made it a point to say verbal fireworks, in hopes that people would understand that I wanted to focus on the effect of his words, not critique the content. That's what's important when listening to Russell Brand. To get bogged down in the political nitty-gritty of this interview is to miss the point, even outside the context of my OP.

Brand did not go into that interview to espouse a specific solution to save the world, he was just defending himself against harshly framed questions. The exchange opens with Jeremy sneering at Russell for guesting-editing a political magazine. Russell kind of chuckles and straight-up admits he doesn't know very much about politics and that he accepted the job as editor out of sheer novelty. He really wasn't trying to cut a serious figure, and yet Paxton came after him pretty hard, and kept putting him down. No wonder Brand got so worked up, and vented his "ressentiment" (I don't like this word, unless I'm writing in French), Paxton was trivializing the validity of Brand's core values.

The interview wouldn't have been forced to get all politically specific if Paxton didn't come out and say: all your political beliefs are invalid because you don't vote. You don't like the political system--explain why and now construct a model for your ideal government. If you can't do that, you have no business guest-editing a political magazine. Paxton backed him into a corner.

I think Russell makes a good point when he says:



I mean, most everyone would be hard-pressed to do so on the spot, especially if you didn't expect that to come up in the interview. And Russell, as he himself admitted, is not qualified to run the world and decide exactly how it's going to be run. He has no political experience and has no formal education beyond a high school diploma. He is merely giving a voice to the disillusioned, inarticulate masses, who don't have a platform to champion different leaders and alternative politics that might serve them better. And that is what ENFP's do best (Mostly the point of my OP). They aren't systems builders, they are powerful, captivating voices. As Jung put it, Ne-doms are "the natural champion of all minorities with a future".

It's easy to make someone look stupid by asking them to work within your limits. Brand's not going to look good if you ask him to play world leader, and it's a bit nutty to ask of him in the first place. Russell was speaking from a place of values and experience, not political science. Brand didn't frame the interview like that, Paxton did. To me, it was a power move, an attempt to humiliate and dismiss Russell, by rigging the conversational game. But really, by being so tough on him, it just made Brand look more credible.

You know, in the 5 years I've been here, I think this is the first time I've actually seen this part of the ENFP personality so eloquently explained.

And not just that.

It is the first time Ive known it to be genuinely appreciated and recognised as a useful skill in a general setting - instead of when it is used to comfort and prop up people who ve recently suffered some set backs and express appreciation for the fire bring lit under their ass.

I personally don't do this anymore wrt bigger causes because you just get clobbered for supposedly not knowing your shit, not offering solutions and you should shut up already since you supposedly don't know what you re talking about.

I honest to god did not know that people could actually appreciate it for what it was - addressing the fucking elephant in the room and rallying people to throw in their 2 cents and to actually *do* something *together*.

You're right, we make for awesome professional cheerleaders. And yes, we don't hold all the answers - nor should we. It's about standing up together, as a group and coming together to fix *insert issue*. Not being a leader and telling people what to do and how to fix it. It's the ultimate cry for democracy.

So thank you, for validating a part of the ENFP psyche I've been wondering about, struggling with and suppressing for a long time.

 

[Lady_X]

Z, put aside the political specifics. No one here is claiming that Russell Brand should be our new world leader, and that he has devised a flawless political system. I made it a point to say verbal fireworks, in hopes that people would understand that I wanted to focus on the effect of his words, not critique the content. That's what's important when listening to Russell Brand. To get bogged down in the political nitty-gritty of this interview is to miss the point, even outside the context of my OP.

Brand did not go into that interview to espouse a specific solution to save the world, he was just defending himself against harshly framed questions. The exchange opens with Jeremy sneering at Russell for guesting-editing a political magazine. Russell kind of chuckles and straight-up admits he doesn't know very much about politics and that he accepted the job as editor out of sheer novelty. He really wasn't trying to cut a serious figure, and yet Paxton came after him pretty hard, and kept putting him down. No wonder Brand got so worked up, and vented his "ressentiment" (I don't like this word, unless I'm writing in French), Paxton was trivializing the validity of Brand's core values.

The interview wouldn't have been forced to get all politically specific if Paxton didn't come out and say: all your political beliefs are invalid because you don't vote. You don't like the political system--explain why and now construct a model for your ideal government. If you can't do that, you have no business guest-editing a political magazine. Paxton backed him into a corner.

I think Russell makes a good point when he says:



I mean, most everyone would be hard-pressed to do so on the spot, especially if you didn't expect that to come up in the interview. And Russell, as he himself admitted, is not qualified to run the world and decide exactly how it's going to be run. He has no political experience and has no formal education beyond a high school diploma. He is merely giving a voice to the disillusioned, inarticulate masses, who don't have a platform to champion different leaders and alternative politics that might serve them better. And that is what ENFP's do best (Mostly the point of my OP). They aren't systems builders, they are powerful, captivating voices. As Jung put it, Ne-doms are "the natural champion of all minorities with a future".

It's easy to make someone look stupid by asking them to work within your limits. Brand's not going to look good if you ask him to play world leader, and it's a bit nutty to ask of him in the first place. Russell was speaking from a place of values and experience, not political science. Brand didn't frame the interview like that, Paxton did. To me, it was a power move, an attempt to humiliate and dismiss Russell, by rigging the conversational game. But really, by being so tough on him, it just made Brand look more credible.

I so agree and that whole thing is at the core of the issue. Creating established frameworks that one must work within. that is the very thing us enfps take issue with. There is not just one way to do it. There are not just certain people who should be allowed a voice. If the rules of the game were changed to be more inclusive than maybe its one more people like him would play. Then possibly some truly worthwhile change might occur.

A fire has to be started somewhere. Ideas need spark. That is valid an true and the dismissal of that completely illustrates the core issue.

 

[Zarathustra]

Z, put aside the political specifics. No one here is claiming that Russell Brand should be our new world leader, and that he has devised a flawless political system. I made it a point to say verbal fireworks, in hopes that people would understand that I wanted to focus on the effect of his words, not critique the content. That's what's important when listening to Russell Brand. To get bogged down in the political nitty-gritty of this interview is to miss the point, even outside the context of my OP.

Brand did not go into that interview to espouse a specific solution to save the world, he was just defending himself against harshly framed questions. The exchange opens with Jeremy sneering at Russell for guesting-editing a political magazine. Russell kind of chuckles and straight-up admits he doesn't know very much about politics and that he accepted the job as editor out of sheer novelty. He really wasn't trying to cut a serious figure, and yet Paxton came after him pretty hard, and kept putting him down. No wonder Brand got so worked up, and vented his "ressentiment" (I don't like this word, unless I'm writing in French), Paxton was trivializing the validity of Brand's core values.

The interview wouldn't have been forced to get all politically specific if Paxton didn't come out and say: all your political beliefs are invalid because you don't vote. You don't like the political system--explain why and now construct a model for your ideal government. If you can't do that, you have no business guest-editing a political magazine. Paxton backed him into a corner.

I think Russell makes a good point when he says:



I mean, most everyone would be hard-pressed to do so on the spot, especially if you didn't expect that to come up in the interview. And Russell, as he himself admitted, is not qualified to run the world and decide exactly how it's going to be run. He has no political experience and has no formal education beyond a high school diploma. He is merely giving a voice to the disillusioned, inarticulate masses, who don't have a platform to champion different leaders and alternative politics that might serve them better. And that is what ENFP's do best (Mostly the point of my OP). They aren't systems builders, they are powerful, captivating voices. As Jung put it, Ne-doms are "the natural champion of all minorities with a future".

It's easy to make someone look stupid by asking them to work within your limits. Brand's not going to look good if you ask him to play world leader, and it's a bit nutty to ask of him in the first place. Russell was speaking from a place of values and experience, not political science. Brand didn't frame the interview like that, Paxton did. To me, it was a power move, an attempt to humiliate and dismiss Russell, by rigging the conversational game. But really, by being so tough on him, it just made Brand look more credible.

Look, I went to Berkeley.

Do you know how many know-nothing firebrands I've seen in my day?

I could really give a shit about whatever you're trying to defend him about: his need to let that ENFP fire out, or whatever.

There are real political/economic issues in the world, and some persuasive know-nothing with an opinion doesn't mean shit to me.

Nor should he.

There's enough bullshit obfuscating the search for the truth (i.e., what really needs to be done), and that's despite the fact that lots of well-meaning, experienced, knowledgable people, who know a lot more than Russell Brand does, are trying to make this thing work the best they can. The world is complicated and difficult to get a grasp of: if Russell Brand can't deliver analysis and insights that cut through all that, then why should I give a fuck what he has to say about it?

An unchecked ENFP on the loose can be a scary thing

Interestingly enough, when I searched my brain for "unchecked ENFP", the person who came to mind was Russell Brand.

You know, in the 5 years I've been here, I think this is the first time I've actually seen this part of the ENFP personality so eloquently explained.

And not just that.

It is the first time Ive known it to be genuinely appreciated and recognised as a useful skill in a general setting - instead of when it is used to comfort and prop up people who ve recently suffered some set backs and express appreciation for the fire bring lit under their ass.

I personally don't do this anymore wrt bigger causes because you just get clobbered for supposedly not knowing your shit, not offering solutions and you should shut up already since you supposedly don't know what you re talking about.

I honest to god did not know that people could actually appreciate it for what it was - addressing the fucking elephant in the room and rallying people to throw in their 2 cents and to actually *do* something *together*.

You're right, we make for awesome professional cheerleaders. And yes, we don't hold all the answers - nor should we. It's about standing up together, as a group and coming together to fix *insert issue*. Not being a leader and telling people what to do and how to fix it. It's the ultimate cry for democracy.

So thank you, for validating a part of the ENFP psyche I've been wondering about, struggling with and suppressing for a long time.

I so agree and that whole thing is at the core of the issue. Creating established frameworks that one must work within. that is the very thing us enfps take issue with. There is not just one way to do it. There are not just certain people who should be allowed a voice. If the rules of the game were changed to be more inclusive than maybe its one more people like him would play. Then possibly some truly worthwhile change might occur.

A fire has to be started somewhere. Ideas need spark. That is valid an true and the dismissal of that completely illustrates the core issue.

God, this is turning into one big, clueless ENFP circle jerk.

"Screw being right, as long as something is CHANGING!!!"

I'm sorry, I'll bow out now.

Sober analysis never seems to be what's desired in these.

*hears the sound of a thousand groundless revolutions*

 

[Amargith]

Being right is subjective, at best. And it is something to be worked out in dialogue. But that requires first pointing at the elephant and going:

Let's discuss this shall we? I'll go first - insert opinion -

Your turn. What do you think?

Thats how team work can lead to a great change, informed, well executed and yes, ignited by someone who didn't know all the answers before spilling their guts. It's a group effort, imho. And if that person is 'wrong', open dialogue of their draft proposal will reflect this.

 

[Lady_X]

You're only allowing voice with your preferred tone tho. How is that inclusive or about the people?

 

[Zarathustra]

Being right is subjective, at best.

No, actually, it's not.

And it is something to be worked out in dialogue.

That much, at least, is true.

Without a collaborative process in which all the relevant voices are heard, one is unlikely to arrive at the right solution.

But that requires first pointing at the elephant and going:

Let's discuss this shall we? I'll go first - insert opinion -

Your turn. What do you think?

Thats how team work can lead to a great change, informed, well executed and yes, ignited by someone who didn't know all the answers before spilling their guts. It's a group effort, imho. And if that person is 'wrong', open dialogue of their draft proposal will reflect this.

This dialogue has been going on long before Russell Brand joined it.

And we are all already well aware of the elephant he is pointing at.

Also, I have analyzed his policy proposals, and they are indeed wrong.

You're only allowing voice with your preferred tone tho. How is that inclusive or about the people?

Hey, he can say whatever the fuck he wants.

And, frankly, I have conversations with all kinds of people, and try to incorporate everything I hear from all of them into my analysis.

I'm just saying, he clearly demonstrated multiple times that he does no such thing, and has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

 

[Amargith]

Sigh. See, this is what I mean with the 'shut up and be quiet' - treatment. And it's why I don't bother with it anymore.

 

[Lady_X]

No, actually, it's not.



That much, at least, is true.

Without a collaborative process in which all the relevant voices are heard, one is unlikely to arrive at the right solution.



This dialogue has been going on long before Russell Brand joined it.

And we are all already well aware of the elephant he is pointing at.

Also, I have analyzed his policy proposals, and they are indeed wrong.



Hey, he can say whatever the fuck he wants.

And, frankly, I have conversations with all kinds of people, and try to incorporate everything I hear from all of them into my analysis.

I'm just saying, he clearly demonstrated multiple times that he does no such thing, and has no fucking clue what he's talking about.

That's just not true. He knows exactly what he's saying. It's just not anything you value. There's a huge difference.

 

[Zarathustra]

Sigh. See, this is what I mean with the 'shut up and be quiet' - treatment. And it's why I don't bother with it anymore.

Amar, I was just thinking to myself this morning, as I do every so often, about how much I appreciate your posting.

Just because some (not all) ENFPs have no real place at the adult table when it comes to politics and economics, does not mean they have nothing to contribute ever on any topic.

Frankly, it's rather ridiculous to think one should be listened to seriously on an important matter when one knows little-to-nothing about the subject.

 

[Zarathustra]

That's just not true. He knows exactly what he's saying. It's just not anything you value. There's a huge difference.

No, actually, he doesn't.

All he knows is how he feels.

His policy proposals were insanely stupid.

And he doesn't even understand why.

Because he has no clue how the system actually works.

 

[Amargith]

Amar, I was just thinking to myself this morning about how much I appreciate your posting.

Just because many (not all) ENFPs have no real place at the adult table when it comes to politics and economics, does not mean they have nothing to contribute ever on any topic.

Frankly, it's rather ridiculous to think one should be listened to seriously on an important matter when one knows little-to-nothing on the subject.

You're missing the point.

We readily admitted that ignorance might be a factor. It's about the kid who doesn't know anything about court life going: look, the emperor has NO CLOTHES!

It is a fundamental aspect of being an ENFP champion. Truth be told, I took that criticism to heart, every time someone like yourself shot me down for doing just that. And I studied, and educated and what did I find? Not only did I let precious time go by in order to prepare my case, I *STILL* wasn't considered good enough for the adult table, just because my child-like way of presenting things wasn't appreciated. So I studied how to build up an argument.

And now I find myself mourning that loss of spontaneity, of childlike honesty that I didn't know was precious.

It isn't about being right or wrong. It is about bringing people together to work together on something that is a potential problem for our society/team. WE don't care about being right or wrong, generally. That we leave up to the Ni-users, trust me. We care about addressing shit everyone else is fucking tiptoeing around. Whether or not it actually needs revising is the next phase, and yes, not always in our area of expertise. Most of us however also have no problem sharing that spotlight and handing it over as we tend to readily recognise someone else's expertise, unlike some others.

There is no need to know *everything* when your role is to rally the groups and cheer them on. That's what you bring in the expert NJ consultant for. To evaluate things and yes, to do the adult table thing.

It also would be *NICE* to fucking well be appreciated instead of clobbered for the actual significant contribution we make to those talks though. Instead of being mocked as the court jester and clueless idiot.

For that matter, let's see your INTJ ass speak up, rally troups, charm an audience, inspire them with genuine passion and get away with it. And you still have a small shot at it, being sx-so, I'd wager.

Recognize it for the skill it is and the value it has. It would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Lady_X]

No, actually, he doesn't.

All he knows is how he feels.

His policy proposals were insanely stupid.

And he doesn't even understand why.

Because he has no clue how the system actually works.

But none of that is what he was saying. It wasn't his intention to speak as an authority on that. He didn't fail at his attempt. He was attempting something else.

 

[Amargith]

But none of that is what he was saying. It wasn't his intention to speak as an authority on that. He didn't fail at his attempt. He was attempting something else.

Exactly.

 

[Zarathustra]

You're missing the point.

We readily admitted that ignorance might be a factor. It's about the kid who doesn't know anything about court life going: look, the emperor has NO CLOTHES!

No, you're missing the point.

In that this is rarely a novel observation, and really contributes next to nothing to the advancement of the search for truth.

It is a fundamental aspect of being an ENFP champion. Truth be told, I took that criticism to heart, every time someone like yourself shot me down for doing just that. And I studied, and educated and what did I find? Not only did I let precious time go by in order to prepare my case, I *STILL* wasn't considered good enough for the adult table, just because my child-like way of presenting things wasn't appreciated. So I studied how to build up an argument.

And now I find myself mourning that loss of spontaneity, of childlike honesty that I didn't know was precious.

It isn't about being right or wrong. It is about bringing people together to work together on something that is a potential problem for our society/team. WE don't care about being right or wrong, generally. That we leave up to the Ni-users, trust me. We care about addressing shit everyone else is fucking tiptoeing around. Whether or not it actually needs revising is the next phase, and yes, not always in our area of expertise. Most of us however also have no problem sharing that spotlight and handing it over as we tend to readily recognise someone else's expertise, unlike some others.

There is no need to know *everything* when your role is to rally the groups and cheer them on. That's what you bring in the expert NJ consultant for. To evaluate things and yes, to do the adult table thing.

The bolded is where you're wrong.

The point is to be right, whether you know it and respect it or not.

If the decisions you make are not the right ones, you end up with less-than-optimal results.

It also would be *NICE* to fucking well be appreciated instead of clobbered for the actual significant contribution we make to those talks though. Instead of being mocked as the court jester and clueless idiot.

But I think often you all DON'T actually contribute much to these talks.

You all sure seem to WANT to, and thus surely make your voice heard, at which time those who know just kind of roll their eyes.

At worst, you start detracting from the conversation by bringing up worthless topics that are already known, and have already been incorporated into the analysis, but you say them as if they have not already been (and rather loudly).

For that matter, let's see your INTJ ass speak up, rally troups, charm an audience, inspire them with genuine passion and get away with it. And you still have a small shot at it, being sx-so, I'd wager.

Yeah, I do.

It's not nearly as readily available for me as it is for you, but, as those who have heard me know, I am a force to be reckoned with.

The difference is, I will be extremely knowledgable about what I'm talking about, have the facts and arguments at hand, and be absolutely right about the subject.

Recognize it for the skill it is and the value it has. It would be greatly appreciated.

I recognized it plenty before you posted in here.

That you chose to seemingly gloss over those parts was not my doing.

 

[Zarathustra]

But none of that is what he was saying. It wasn't his intention to speak as an authority on that. He didn't fail at his attempt. He was attempting something else.

He is editing a political magazine.

He talked about policy proposals.

He talked about what's supposedly wrong with the system.

He talked about how he would change things (barely).

He claimed that things need to change.

And on all these counts, he is fucking clueless.

Did he do other stuff too?

Yes.

Did he succeed at it?

Yes.

He vented his feelings.

And that is all he did.

 

[Amargith]

Yup. It's just coz you value being right more than we do. And therefore consider the rest irrelevant. And unfortunately, this is common practice wrt this particular ENFP trait

If you go back to the Op though, and even after that, Forever_Jung reiterated that that was *NOT* the point of this thread.

And I wanna take this moment to smooch the stuffing out of [MENTION=7040]Forever_Jung[/MENTION] for starting this thread and this topic

Forever_Jung

You rocked my world tonight, baby

 

[Starry]

Just because some ENFPs have no real place at the adult table...

You know as the holidays approach... I just would like to mention that I truly feel I'm ready to use a regular glass-glass this year. Not that tupperware cup thing...