User Tag List

First 3111213

Results 121 to 126 of 126

Thread: Fictional ENFPs

  1. #121
    Remember, Humanity. Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indigo Rodent View Post
    Ne is physically awkward. Acting physically with accuracy requires ENFP to use Si which costs a lot of energy to use.
    The most important is that Ne doesnt obstruct Se at all, only Si depending on the case. Acting physically is more related to Se than Si.

    And Ne Jung is not anti-physically because Ne is orientated by the object, it has a decided dependence upon external situations. The anti-physically cognitive function is likely Ni and thats quite discussable because Ni can be used to do predictions that change your actions and Ni is a perception cognitive function.
    The E/I in Jung, which is the I/E where cognitive functions come from, is somewhat related to N/S. E in Jung is related to S, while I in Jung is related to N. These relations are noisy, although even Jung kind of recognizes them. In MBTI, that was removed, at the cost of reducing the meaning of E/I dimension. You can read the main chapter of cognitive functions in Jung here:
    Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

    Some cognitive functions were somewhat swapped, Si especially (swapped to match S+J), but many Ne early concepts still remain.

  2. #122
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ENFp None
    Posts
    186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vendrah View Post
    The most important is that Ne doesnt obstruct Se at all, only Si depending on the case. Acting physically is more related to Se than Si.

    And Ne Jung is not anti-physically because Ne is orientated by the object, it has a decided dependence upon external situations. The anti-physically cognitive function is likely Ni and thats quite discussable because Ni can be used to do predictions that change your actions and Ni is a perception cognitive function.
    The E/I in Jung, which is the I/E where cognitive functions come from, is somewhat related to N/S. E in Jung is related to S, while I in Jung is related to N. These relations are noisy, although even Jung kind of recognizes them. In MBTI, that was removed, at the cost of reducing the meaning of E/I dimension. You can read the main chapter of cognitive functions in Jung here:
    Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10

    Some cognitive functions were somewhat swapped, Si especially (swapped to match S+J), but many Ne early concepts still remain.
    It's just some ideas that Jung had. It doesn't make it true O_O ? Like, why would I even consider this stuff relevant to anything O_O ?

    I know when I use Si and when I use Ne because I know how to recognise it physically. It's stuff from later research which I verified in practice.

    I don't even believe in unconscious functions since they don't show physically. For example both Ne and Se show themselves when eyes are widened and result in different perceptions of reality (Se is laser-focused on obtaining sensory data, while Ne is zoned out) and they are mutually exclusive - one either has Se eyes or Ne eyes. I can be dyspraxic or quite physically competent depending if I use Ne or Si. Of course it has downside of using Si using up energy, so I have to prop it up with Fi.

  3. #123
    Remember, Humanity. Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indigo Rodent View Post
    It's just some ideas that Jung had. It doesn't make it true O_O ? Like, why would I even consider this stuff relevant to anything O_O ?

    I know when I use Si and when I use Ne because I know how to recognise it physically. It's stuff from later research which I verified in practice.

    I don't even believe in unconscious functions since they don't show physically. For example both Ne and Se show themselves when eyes are widened and result in different perceptions of reality (Se is laser-focused on obtaining sensory data, while Ne is zoned out) and they are mutually exclusive - one either has Se eyes or Ne eyes. I can be dyspraxic or quite physically competent depending if I use Ne or Si. Of course it has downside of using Si using up energy, so I have to prop it up with Fi.
    Jung matter because he is the base on these cognitive functions.
    In Jung:
    E--> Attention towards the object/external/enviroment
    I--> Attention towards the subject/ownself/inwards

    N combined with E means intuition with attention towards the object/external/enviroment, thats why Ne is not physically awkward. And I dont see why Ne obstructs Se, you can oscilate into one or another...

  4. #124
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ENFp None
    Posts
    186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vendrah View Post
    Jung matter because he is the base on these cognitive functions.
    In Jung:
    E--> Attention towards the object/external/enviroment
    I--> Attention towards the subject/ownself/inwards

    N combined with E means intuition with attention towards the object/external/enviroment, thats why Ne is not physically awkward. And I dont see why Ne obstructs Se, you can oscilate into one or another...
    1. Jung is wrong, Jung had some pioneering ideas but no real testing tools to determine what functions people use, hence you get nonsense like "invisible Fi". Most of what he says is pure speculation.
    2. Ne users don't have Se, they have Si. They have different eyes.
    3. If you'd thought about it for a moment, you'd realise that the distinction between object and subject is pure nonsense. It's impossible to have objective sensual perception because all sensual perception has to get through sensory organs and nervous system, i.e. is inherently subjective. Perceptions are inherently internal states. Si is as applicable for physical activities as Se because both connect to material reality instead of disconnecting to think about ideas and patterns.

    It's more about focused vs. dispersed than internal vs. external. As in focused (narrowed eyes) physically present vs. dispersed (widened eyes) physically present and focused zoned out vs dispersed zoned out.

  5. #125
    Remember, Humanity. Vendrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    MBTI
    XNFP
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Posts
    522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indigo Rodent View Post
    1. Jung is wrong, Jung had some pioneering ideas but no real testing tools to determine what functions people use, hence you get nonsense like "invisible Fi". Most of what he says is pure speculation.
    2. Ne users don't have Se, they have Si. They have different eyes.
    3. If you'd thought about it for a moment, you'd realise that the distinction between object and subject is pure nonsense. It's impossible to have objective sensual perception because all sensual perception has to get through sensory organs and nervous system, i.e. is inherently subjective. Perceptions are inherently internal states. Si is as applicable for physical activities as Se because both connect to material reality instead of disconnecting to think about ideas and patterns.

    It's more about focused vs. dispersed than internal vs. external. As in focused (narrowed eyes) physically present vs. dispersed (widened eyes) physically present and focused zoned out vs dispersed zoned out.
    The stuff you are talking about isnt scientific either, and perhaps they dont even come from psychologists. The only part that is somewhat science, aka soft science, is MBTI with letters dichotomy. The research on cognitive functions is very scare (doenst happen much often) and difficult to find on google scholar (or perhaps I´ve tried the wrong words) and only served to prove fixed cognitive stacks to be unrealistic.

    I think that its ok to add characteristics to the cognitive functions, but keeping the main concept intact is important because it is the main concept that gives birth to these cognitive functions. If it is to modify the main concept, it needs data justification or at least a very strong and logical reason to do so (and it better be testable), better than just affirmations with barely no whys. The original concepts of cognitive functions are what I said to you and everything that keeps the original concept needs to follow that pattern. If it doesnt follow, than its already something very different, and that would be ok if experiments says so. Partial reason of some websites not following that main concept is that some of them takes the NP, SJ, etc.. as equivalent of cognitive functions. With Si=SJ you can add some extraverted characteristics to Si that doesnt actually belong to Si (like complying and enforcing rules), as long as it is SJ. Actually, the original Jung Si is not even presented on these website, it is really not the original Si but rather SJ, but most websites keeps the original concepts for other functions such as Ne.

    I am not a walking bible of Jung, I already said that Jung could be wrong but thats because there was data research saying so. Anyway, part of Jung is somewhat mythic and untestable, and people like to attach branches to it just for fun.. I do that... But keeping main concept unless testable things dont say so is something important, however as Sakinorva´s article said (and perhaps even Reckful) things are already kind of messy anyway, but its still interesting.

  6. #126
    Senior Member Tina&Jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    239

    Default

    I've seen Jo from Little Women typed as ENFP.

Similar Threads

  1. [ENFP] Hate an ENFP? Tell us why!
    By findthejake in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 1163
    Last Post: 11-14-2018, 12:10 AM
  2. [ENFP] ENFP's are PARANOID! Hahahaha...um...
    By CzeCze in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 73
    Last Post: 07-30-2009, 09:33 AM
  3. [ENFP] enfp's fact or fiction
    By targobelle in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 458
    Last Post: 05-24-2009, 03:07 PM
  4. [ENFP] INFP vs. ENFP
    By arcticangel02 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 01-21-2009, 04:19 AM
  5. [ENFP] The ENFP Paradox
    By autumn in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 83
    Last Post: 01-15-2008, 04:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO