[ENTP] Are ENTPs aggressive/forceful?

[entropie]

I guess in the end creativity can emerge in several directions and it depends on which you choose. To be rationally creative comes with my job, so I am probably more inclined to that form. You reach a point in your life, where you need answers and then the whole I am the one thinking outside the box attitude will not suffice you anymore. At this point in life you see other peopel going their ways, your see your friends becoming someone or getting at something.

And if you have reached this point you really want too.

 

[Qre:us]

I really never got the point about ENTPs being constantly on the search for arguements.

It may be because you are not understanding the premise of an argument. It is not in a negative sense I set out to 'argue'. It is to learn. And, I learn by being mentally challenged. Reading the writing on a page doesn't have that active challenge, that improvisational quality that hones critical thinking, which you only get through some kind of interactive and fairly immediate dialogue.

ENTPs want harmony above it all. Harmony is when the system works, alle the knobs turn and the machine makes a sound while giving off steam.

Harmony of a system. Means I want to look at all nook and cranny, shaky it on its head, to see if it is still stable. Shaking can't be avoided. That is achieving harmony of a system such that it works. It is sound.

I am frequently told that I am 'too chill', 'too go with the flow'. Most daily interactive trivialities with people goes in one ear, out the other - it's more of an observance. And, if there's a spark somewher, I dig deeper. Nothing personal. That then to some become aggressive. Cuz I can dig for ages.

And, in interpersonal matters, I usually casually tell the other when they do wrong the first time, "Please don't say X, makes me feel like this." I guess because I just flippantly mention it, some who don't know me enough, don't take heed. Once I let go, twice I give to allow the message to sink in. Third time, you bring it, I will finish it.
I don't bargain with respect for harmony.

 

[527468]

ENTPs aren't strongly aggressive. Why? Because their creativity wastes aggressive behavior.

 

[Unique]

The only ENTP I've met irl was extremely aggressive... silly at times sure... but mostly aggressive.

 

[Simplexity]

Of course they are. Grow A spine, push back. Laugh it off. They're some of the worst reaction whores I've seen. They live for the opportunity to affect someone in almost any way. They can go to creative lengths to do so. They feel a lot more passionately about things than they let on, if you want to have fun with them test them on that. Draw out their bad side and withstand it and you will fix a lot of the aggressive issues you may have.

 

[briochick]

i don't actually know any entps. I know an estp and he's pretty cool. Agressive? yeah sure, but not in a "if you say what I don't like I'm going to explode" way that enfjs are. *laughs nervously* but...what I've heard of entps is pretty good.

 

[Kasper]

<-- Visual demonstration of my forceful aggression!

Assertive yes, aggressive never.

 

[jenocyde]

They live for the opportunity to affect someone in almost any way.

I actually live for the opportunity to be affected by someone, anyone. It rarely happens.

And I'm the furthest thing from aggressive - I lose interest far too quickly and my brain is already off chasing tangents by the time I finish a sentence. But people tend to think I'm aggressive because in order to save time, I cut out most extraneous words and just get to the f'n point, before I forget what my point is. I also get "intense" a lot. I silently laugh inside when I hear that one.

 

[Moiety]

Do you mean 'self difference' (I added it to your quote and will correct it if I got it wrong)

If yes then:
So we can say that if humans are all so alike: it's like saying that X+Y= 1 and only the values of X and Y change but the sum stays the same.
agree?

What about a more social vision of human society. Which is not purely factualy neutral but qualitative (I didn't say moral).
There the values of " X " and " Y " do matter.

This is why I used the example of consciousness, because it's one of the point that is supposed to make us radically different from other animals.
I didn't say I agree by the way, I don't, but it's one of the things that are pretty much universally accepted in one way or another wether its being called awareness\understanding\consciousness\intelligence, the basic idea is the same: a will and capacity to interpret and modify our environnement using abstract concepts (more or less).

That would be one of the top two reasons, yes - superior intellect/consciousness. The other being more complex emotions and sense of morality.

Allow me to clarify what I meant by changing the analogy somewhat. Peace of mind = 5; T+F = 5

For a T, peace of mind might be achieved by looking at life through a 4+1 (T and F respectively) perspective while for an F it might be achieved with 1+4 (T and F respectively). There's no such thing as a 5+0 or 0+5 model, though.





And back then I meant to say "My point being that what makes two different people tick is basically the same if you zoom close enough."

So you could say that yes, depending how you looks at it, the X + Y analogy is something I can agree with. We all need to both satisfy our personal goals (what it means to be happy for each of us) and our primitive instincts. That's what I meant by "if you zoom close enough".

As far as "stability" or "peace of mind" is concerned...what I meant by peace of mind was basically happiness. Competition and survival of the fittest aren't necessarily concepts that hold true for humans as animals, anymore. We can say Madre Teresa didn't really compete. She only did it in the sense that she was pursuing her own state of peace of mind (I must help others in order to be happy; Come to think of it, enneagram theory might have a thing or two to say about this...) by helping others (and let's assume, for the sake of argument, that was her driving force throughout her life). She certainly didn't live her life with complete disregard for the rest of her own species as long as she could stay on top.

Survival might have been the only driving force of more primitive animals, but with consciousness and emotions, Man is different.

 

[EcK]

We need to introduce the concept of supervenience here.
A superposition of levels, each superior level containing all the lower one.

An example: macroscale physics and ...
Here, googled it and got a nice picture, it'll save me some typing.

If you understand particule physics, you can understand social groups if you have enough information and computing power.
But you can't understand particules physics by looking at social groups. (except if ur planning on getting three nobels a year)(keep dreaming).

On the other hand it's easier to "reverse engineer" elementary particules by knowing atoms and inducing the origins of their behaviors and structures.

In understanding the human mind and behavior, the more we stay 'human' in our description, inducing feelings, meaning and so on. The more familiar it is, the easier for us it is to compute.
Pros: Comes naturally, can give new ideas that can then be applied at that level and compared with other levels of understanding to make the whole system more accurate on every level.
cons: unprecise, understanding one level doesn't mean understanding its root level.
for example, understanding the way the eyes\brain capture different frequencies of photons doesn't seem to 'explain' the emergent property of colors, which don't physically exist in the environment.

So on one level the 'happiness and stability' will have a more philosophical meaning.
While on a more biological \ physical scale of understanding the happiness and desire for stability ultimately are results of the subtle balance of evolutionary and mental mechanisms of the will to power and drive for relatively superiorly efficient reproduction.

 

[Mondo]

I tend to not be aggressive because I don't want to push people away, not because I'm incapable of being aggressive.

 

[tinkerbell]

yes and now, can be but usually when attacked... but in the main I can be very firm with people, sometimes a little T typed too much.

I have an ENFP at work and I love her F'ness so much more cuddly than I am

Lis

 

[Winds of Thor]

I've been reading here and there where other types (particularly F's and S's) talk about ENTP's and saying that we're generally forceful, aggressive and assertive, implying it in a bad way.

This strikes me as odd, because I've never thought of myself as an aggressive person. Assertive, certainly - I will be outspoken about things that piss me off, and I can be persuasive and I admit, manipulative too at times.

However, the last thing that's ever on my mind is actually forcing people to do or think anything. Sometimes I do express myself perhaps more openly and assertively than some other people do, but it's not because I'm trying to force or persuade - I'm trying to be as clear as possible and I want people to push back and tell me things 'in no uncertain terms'. If they have a problem I want them to voice it, and if they voice it, I want to listen and understand and make any necessary changes to help them. When I ask 'What is your problem?' it's out of curiosity, not aggression or defensiveness.

One of the things that frustrates me most about a friendship I have with an INFJ woman, is when things go all awry because apparently, something I've been doing has been upsetting her, but I've not known because she hasn't told me, so I've kept on doing it. I ask her in exasperation why on earth she didn't just say if she had a problem, and she says she was worried that I'd get mad or annoyed at her, and yet when she finally does say what the problem was, I always concede that she has a point, and apologise, and do what I can do improve things in the future, so I really don't know where she gets this idea from that I'm so aggressive and unapproachable...

But, come to think of it, it seems the only people I can really rely on in my life to give me honest feedback in clear and unambiguous terms, without pulling punches (the way I like it) are two ENTJ's and an INTJ... and they don't exactly have great reputations for tact either...

I'd be really interested to hear about other people's experiences with ENTP's and how we come across, as I fear some of it may be lost in translation and I'd like to be able to communicate with the people I know in a way that doesn't make them afraid of me! And I'd also like to know what ways I could use to more effectively get clear and honest feedback from the gentler types... after all, if the only frank advice I'm getting is from similarly assertive types, then it won't help me in dealing with the others and just might exacerbate the problem (if there even is one).

You may be seeking efficiency in solving the problem..She may be a little stubborn...walk in her shoes emotionally with her..that way you both are right alongside each other and comfortable understanding each other. The thing to remember is to focus on how she sees things.

 

[simulatedworld]

Actually yes, this gets me constantly. It's always a sad day when we find out we've been bothering someone for a long time without really realizing it. We're generally outgoing and smart enough with our interests that people assume we can't possibly be emotionally stupid by accident, so they don't bother saying anything, and then it all blows up one day and we're left wondering what exactly went wrong.

I find myself constantly asking people, "Why didn't you just tell me it bothered you??"

And the answer is inevitably something stupid about how I should have "just known." And it almost always comes from someone high on too much Si and just seriously offended by our general disrespect toward traditions and rules. Often they can't even explain why they don't like us, other than "Well you're just too forceful and aggressive" (which often translates to, "You're right too often, stop it because it's making me feel inadequate!"), but strong Si dominants will tend to just tolerate us in the best of conditions--and absolutely hate us in the worst.

Honestly it really sucks sometimes. Not only do I have to deal with being totally incompetent regarding a lot of real world responsibilities, I have to deal with people thinking it's personal or intentional, or somehow mean-spirited. I know I can be aggressive and forceful at times, but it's usually not as serious as some people seem to think it is.

It's kind of a simultaneous blessing and curse. Currently I am suffering some negative consequences from it and it's shitty. Really shitty. But I'll probably appreciate it again the next time I create something really unique or interesting. Sometimes I wish I could just be ISFJ and sit at home never bothering anyone or causing any trouble.

But I guess that's not me.

 

[simulatedworld]

I'm also baffled abt argument question. Talking about the world events of the day, or whatever, does not mean you are looking for an argument, just a discussion. NFs want discussions about feelings *shudder*, I want discussions about events... Is that so wrong? I'm not challenging anyone. If I didn't care what someone has to say, I wouldn't initiate a conversation at all.

You can't expect people to approach it that reasonably. That's the problem with ENTPs; we expect rationality from everyone and we get very petulant when others don't deliver. We're also really biting when we want to be, and have no problem calling people out when we see an issue.

When allowed to relax and be ourselves, though, we are very calm and open. Our natural data-gathering and sorting process involves doing a lot of things that other types consider rude or uncalled for, and because our penchant for arguing gives us such a bad reputation, it's almost impossible to convince anyone that we don't really mean it in a hurtful way (usually).

Honestly the more stupid crap I go through with other types the more I resent and begin to hate my own. NFs would rather avoid conflicts as long as possible, so we never know when we're bugging them until it's too late (at which point they invariably expect us to be emotional psychics and "just know" the problem! lolz); SJs simply dislike everything about our iconoclastic behavior and smart ass disregard for authority. (Only SPs seem to have a kind of live and let live existence with us, but neither of us understands the other very well.)

It all comes down to this: ENTPs are the anti-Si, and that causes an awful lot of nasty problems in this SJ-driven world.

 

[Dark Razor]

ENTPs might think they are agressive and forceful, but in reality they are just being fluffy-cute .

 

[Synarch]

I'm generally only forceful in presenting my arguments. I can be quite emphatic when I get onto something. However, I try only to make converts, not slaves, so I guess this would make me less forceful than say an ENTJ. I just don't have an interest in enforcing compliance with my directives. I want to make requests and have them carried out with minimal oversight.

I can also be aggressive but again it is in a more distant, light manner. I like to dart in and cut someone then dance off again and watch their mouths drop open when they realize that not all smiling people are nice and that their blood looks funny when it pools at their feet.

 

[jenocyde]

I don't think I'm aggressive or forceful, but people seem to think I am. I never understood why. I guess, I just don't use extraneous filler words and people need them somehow.

 

[CJ99]

I think its because there very blunt and honest. I've noticed that when i "get extravated" i'm very honest and blunt and people are taken aback. Especially in arguments. My sis told me i was really aggressive to my dad the other day and i didn't realise i was just saying what i thought with usual bluntness!

 

[Synarch]

I don't think I'm aggressive or forceful, but people seem to think I am. I never understood why. I guess, I just don't use extraneous filler words and people need them somehow.

They can tell that you have a steel rod running through you.