Cannot tell if my boyfriend is an ENTJ or ESTJ.

[Thalassa]

Oh, he definitely applies whatever he learns to future situations. I'll give a few examples.

In terms of learning from BAD experiences... He once got revenge on someone he was VERY angry at. After that experience, which I won't describe in detail, he learned that such revenge is a terrible thing to do. He has since had opportunities to enact revenge on others, but he didn't do it because of what he previously learned the hard way.

Another thing about him is that he's very against drinking and refuses to ever consume alcohol. His father was an alcoholic, which contributed to his parents' divorce.

If he does something like mess up on a homework assignment, he will learn from that mistake snd apply his new knowledge to future assignments. The same goes for whatever hobbies he's doing.

Um, STJs tend to learn from their mistakes too. My ISTJ used to bitch about people not ever learning from their past mistakes.

 

[Thalassa]

Sorry lady, but what I described was Si. But, ESTJ's can come out of their, "closed minded" and "traditional" ways if they develop Ne

Si is a linear pattern of thought where a person cautiously regards new information, which must be worked into the existing linear framework. It's highly personal, and I tend to think of it as a filing cabinet in the mind, or a trail of dominoes. Si users tend to prefer depth over breadth, and will pore into a singular subject in minute detail. They also tend to feel most comfortable with things that are either already in, or closely related to, their preferred personal sensory experience. Si is similar to Ni in that it attaches symbolic meaning to objects and concepts, but for the Si user, the symbolism is purely archetypal and may be completely subconscious...so instead of contemplating what a clock symbolically means, they will have an immediate...hrm...feeling association with clocks, or at least with clocks which look a certain way. There's an entire mythology tied to physical objects and sensory experiences in the Si users mind. They also tend to express their Te or Fe in more practical, concrete, or external ways ...however, in ExTJs or ExFJs this can get tricky if you can't tell the difference between Si/Ne and Ni/Se.

This is Si:

The Introverted Sensation Type

The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather [p. 501] by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not. If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident. This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all; or why objects in general should have any right to existence, since everything essential happens without the object. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, though not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is indispensable to his sensation, only it produces something different from what was to be surmised from the external state of affairs. Considered from without, it looks as though the effect of the object [p. 502] did not obtrude itself upon the subject. This impression is so far correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious, thus snatching away the effect of the object. This intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to shield himself directly from any possible influence of the object. In any aggravated or well-marked case, such a protective guard is also actually present. Even with only a slight reinforcement of the unconscious, the subjective constituent of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the objective influence. The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject, which in morbid cases may even reach the point of a complete inability to discriminate between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction vanishes completely only in a practically psychotic state, yet long before that point is reached subjective perception may influence thought, feeling, and action to an extreme degree, in spite of the fact that the object is clearly seen in its fullest reality. Whenever the objective influence does succeed in forcing its way into the subject -- as the result of particular circumstances of special intensity, or because of a more perfect analogy with the unconscious image -- even the normal example of this type is induced to act in accordance with his unconscious model. Such action has an illusory quality in relation to objective reality, and therefore has a very odd and strange character. It instantly reveals the anti-real subjectivity of the type, But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the [p. 503] extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. Thus, this type becomes an affliction to his circle, just in so far as his entire harmlessness is no longer above suspicion. But, if the latter should be the case, the individual readily becomes a victim to the aggressiveness and ambitions of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused, for which they usually take vengeance at the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled stubbornness and resistance. When there exists no capacity for artistic expression, all impressions sink into the inner depths, whence they hold consciousness under a spell, removing any possibility it might have had of mastering the fascinating impression by means of conscious expression. Relatively speaking, this type has only archaic possibilities of expression for the disposal of his impressions; thought and feeling are relatively unconscious, and, in so far as they have a certain consciousness, they only serve in the necessary, banal, every-day expressions. Hence as conscious functions, they are wholly unfitted to give any adequate rendering of the subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to an objective understanding and he fares no better in the understanding of himself.

Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as [p. 504] though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion. [p. 505]

Now stop your shit.

 

[Thalassa]

The awesome factor could be an indication of ENTJ, does he dress in suits or is he a snappy dresser?

Gosh yeah does he eat peanut butter? Does he watch tv? He might be an ENTJ!

 

[Lark]

Gosh yeah does he eat peanut butter? Does he watch tv? He might be an ENTJ!

Marmie your undying love for me is truly flattering

 

[Thalassa]

Marmie your undying love for me is truly flattering

You mean my undying love for correcting your rigid incorrect ideas?

 

[Lark]

You mean my undying love for correcting your rigid incorrect ideas?

That's not how I read it

 

[Thalassa]

That's not how I read it

To put it simply, an ESTJ could have a very particular Si style. I've noticed this with SJ boyfriends or friends I've had, AND my ISTJ grandfather. They may have a very particular personal aesthetic that they carefully cultivate. For example, my ESFJ ex loved punk music and obscure horror, and his style tended to adhere to a lot of black and red, and rare underground tee shirts for 60's-70's horror cinema or replicas of classic punk shirts. He was also always extremely clean and scrupulously groomed, so it looked very image-conscious rather than what you might think of a guy who sometimes wore band tee shirts. Another ISFJ ex of mine had a closet FULL of Abercrombie and Hollister, and he spent more on clothes and had more bottles of cologne than me. ISTJ wears black tee shirts with jeans and converse, but also wears $300 pairs of jeans and has extremely interesting hairstyles, some of which hearken back to his interest in 80's New Wave. My ISTJ grandfather pretty much had a functional uniform of khaki pants and golf shirts, but any time he went out to dinner or to church, he wore a really fancy suit, polished his shoes, buffed his nails, and wore cologne. He even used to give himself facials.

So looking "fabulous" or "stylish" has nothing to to do with being NTJ versus STJ. You simply have to look at the motivations. For example, an ever-changing style that attempts to keep up with what is going to make the most impact in the moment may be more of a sign of an ENTJ with strong tertiary Se; but an expensive, high-quality tasteful timeless suit may be the mark of the ESTJ because of his carefully cultivated Si.

So don't over-simplify.

 

[SD45T-2]

I think that this pretty much cancels out the possibility of ESTJ for him. This seems ENTJ.

I'm an ESTJ and there are few things I hate more than someone rejecting proposals on the basis of "because we've always done it this way". If that person is unable to give me an explanation why X has always been done this way, I will not take him/her seriously.

ENTJ: Te-Ni-Se-Fi
ESTJ: Te-Si-Ne-Fi

In terms of it being between EXTJ; its whether they use Ni over Si. Howerver an "intuitive ESTJ" is not the same as an "ENTJ." ESTJ use Ne and ENTJ use Ni. I hope that helps clarify that.

I don't think you said anything she doesn't already know.

 

[Mitsuko Souma]

I don't think you said anything she doesn't already know.

Indeed, she notified me about that already. lol

 

[Cellmold]

I think it's interesting to note that the idea of Si as a function which brings about traditionalism is completely absent from Jung's original type descriptions. If anything Si doms in particular are more subject to pressure by others.

Fortunately David Keirsey came along to tell us all how it is....

I'm an ESTJ and there are few things I hate more than someone rejecting proposals on the basis of "because we've always done it this way". If that person is unable to give me an explanation why X has always been done this way, I will not take him/her seriously.

Exactly, Te is all about efficiency and application. It is about a universal formula of none-bias which all are subject to including the Te dominate. New proposals as well as old methods can be efficient and so both will be given due examination.

Even if Si was the function of sticking to how things were, which I must stress again was not what Jung said of it at all, it would still be subordinate to Te in an ESTJ.

 

[alcea rosea]

Based on OP, I'd say ENTJ.

 

[redacted]

Trying to type by what he's good at is probably the wrong approach. Be especially wary of typing N/S based on ability to understand.

Does he prefer to use abstract analogies to explain things? If so, he's probably N. Does he prefer to explain things in terms of concrete components? Probably an S.

He does not see much inherent value in tradition. It deeply annoys him when people stick to methods that are outdated and/or inefficient, and moreso when they are closed-minded about learning new things. For example, he hates it when old people say stuff like "When I was your age, we didn't have this and that" and frown on progressive technology. He has expressed that he never wants to stop learning, even when he gets old and comfortable. But although he isn't big on the concept of tradition, he DOES have a strong set of moral values. He holds this standard to both himself and others.

This does not rule out S at all. Both ETJ types generally think the way they've come up with is the way to go, so they will frown on things that aren't maximally efficient given their assumptions.

 

[Thalassa]

I think it's interesting to note that the idea of Si as a function which brings about traditionalism is completely absent from Jung's original type descriptions. If anything Si doms in particular are more subject to pressure by others.

Fortunately David Keirsey came along to tell us all how it is....

Yes, that's the Keirsey stereotype. It's because Si types do tend to hold society together, though. They have Fe and Te as a dom or aux function (these judging functions to actively organize the society we live in) , plus Si, which tends to find comfort in linear structured thought and is cautious to accept new information...so this means they may be most comfortable with the way things consistently are in their world, which *may* mean they uphold tradition...but only because it's personally meaningful to them in their own life and household and upbringing.

My thing is that I always say about Keirsey is that he almost "gets it" but not quite. It's because he overgeneralizes too much.

He talks about SJ women pretty much being sexual prudes, for example, but that's a false stereotype...essentially what he's referring to is the value system he saw carried by Fe (and more often accompanied by Si than Ni in xxFJ females) in the mid-20th century WASP-y suburban U.S.

That was due to the mainstream religious and sexual repression that was viewed as "moral" at that time. It's pretty clear, though, that this is silly if we say this is the way SJ females are, especially in different cultures, different value system upbringings, different time periods, etc.

SJs are also exposed to a great deal more information now because of us living in the information age, so what is taken in by their Si is much higher in quantity than what Keirsey stereotyped as the white-bread, Christian middle-class SJ of his own generation.

I get what he was getting at, but he made the mistake of attempting to simultaneously over-generalize (Ne) while throwing in too much detail he had observed in his own life (Si). Keirsey is definitely an INTP.

 

[Cellmold]

Yes, that's the Keirsey stereotype. It's because Si types do tend to hold society together, though. They have Fe and Te as a dom or aux function (these judging functions to actively organize the society we live in) , plus Si, which tends to find comfort in linear structured thought and is cautious to accept new information...so this means they may be most comfortable with the way things consistently are in their world, which *may* mean they uphold tradition...but only because it's personally meaningful to them in their own life and household and upbringing.

It's something extremely important you have written there. But in Jung's description of any function he points out that while auxiliary's exist, they are always subordinate to the dominant. Now I can see how some might see this as a perfect example of why Si doms in particular are supposedly known to conform to and enforce past values, but in reality if anyone was going to do that, using Jung's descriptions, it would be the Te doms seconded by the Fe doms, this includes the ENTJ and the ENFJ by the way.

But none of those is traditionalist it is merely that Te doms wish to use what is most efficient and Fe doms are aware of why they believe certain things work in relation to people.

All Keirsey did was talk about social roles as they are culturally indoctrinated, even though he didn't put it that way. But his idea's are so final and generalised that they both cover everything and yet leave no space for variability.

Which to me is why they are unsatisfying.

 

[Thalassa]

It's something extremely important you have written there. But in Jung's description of any function he points out that while auxiliary's exist, they are always subordinate to the dominant. Now I can see how some might see this as a perfect example of why Si doms in particular are supposedly known to conform to and enforce past values, but in reality if anyone was going to do that, using Jung's descriptions, it would be the Te doms seconded by the Fe doms, this includes the ENTJ and the ENFJ by the way.

Well Te and Fe doms are going to enforce collective logic and collective ethics, respectively. Tradition might be tied to Fe because of social norms, because Te would be more concerned with rules and structure. Fe organizes people and morality, Te organizes the external environment or ideas in an objective and efficient externally measurable manner.

So sure Te may enforce rules and Fe may enforce social norms. But I think cultural tradition is a lot more complex than saying a particular function or type is responsible for it. I tend to find culture beautiful and deeply important to the human psyche. Tradition is a part of culture, it gives people a tie to where they come from and their own past...and yes, we could say Si has something to do with that. I don't know. One of my interests is cultural preservation. I also like history. I think if we forget our collective past we are doomed to repeat it. For a long time this is why I thought I had Si, but if I have Si, I'd have to be an INFP and that simply does not make sense with how "forceful" I come across, it would appear that Se would make more sense as to what people were seeing as "Te." There is no way in hell Si is my rejected, unconscious function. It makes more sense for it to be my opposing personality complex, or my critical parent function. In fact I think I was using Si as a critical parent shadow function last night when I got irritated with some people, it threw me into my SFJ shadow I think, because I started rubbing my past and tradition of the culture I come from in their faces in a really nasty and sarcastic way, even using the term "son" which is typically used as a condescending term from a superior to an inferior in the South.

I only realized later that I was so irritated at that point, and felt so irrationally attacked, that I began talking in the past-tense, my culture of birth, collective norms, and shoulds and ought tos, like an SFJ. That would make sense that I was utilizing my opposing personality and critical parent.

ANYHOO.

Definitely, definitely not a rejected unconscious function for me. I don't see how that's possible.

Back on topic: I wouldn't separate Si as far away from the past as you're trying to do, because yes, Si does have to do with the past BUT A HIGHLY PERSONAL INTERIOR PAST. It would require Fe or Te to enforce that highly personal interior past upon others.

But none of those is traditionalist it is merely that Te doms wish to use what is most efficient and Fe doms are aware of why they believe certain things work in relation to people.

Well, Fe and Te are concerned with what is collectively normative, not just what works. Te is concerned with what is logically normative (or can be confirmed by experts, as well as being externally measurable) and Fe is concerned with what is normative with their primary group.

All Keirsey did was talk about social roles as they are culturally indoctrinated, even though he didn't put it that way. But his idea's are so final and generalised that they both cover everything and yet leave no space for variability.

Which to me is why they are unsatisfying.

I like his Matrices of Temperament in PUMII. Where I start chafing heavily is in his individual descriptions. I just can't bear it.

He does say some pretty true things, though. It's just that you have to take parts of it, and it makes it difficult to accept the entire work as a whole, for obvious reasons.

 

[Thalassa]

Okay this is from Beebe on Eric B's page:

Si in the dominant:

Si (ISxJ): Life must be familiar to my storehouse of data

Si in the aux:

Si (ESxJ): Teaching others according to what's familiar

Si in the tertiary:

Si (INxP): Nostalgic enjoyment of memories, especially childhood (I relate to this)

Si in the inferior:

ENxP's might feel inferior when it comes to a storehouse of tangible acts, such as learned order

ENxP's Dismissed learned methods as irrelevant

yet in the anima/animus:

ENxP's enjoying nostalgia together, and exploring them as exciting possibilities

In the shadow opposing personality complex:

ESxP's Feel obstructed in or become stubborn about their perceptions of how things once were (this sounds so much like me I wanna die)

ESxP's Memorized rules and such are stupid and limiting of freedom.

in the witch/senex/critical parent:

ISxP's Feel negated in or become disgruntled about rememberance of facts.

okay we can stop there, we don't have to go all the way down to demonic Si, but I think this gives us a little bit clearer picture of Si as well.

 

[Thalassa]

Oh wait, here's this too (Si in shadow):

Si as Opposing Personality: The person is focused primarily on the present (emergent tangible data). The past (stored tangible data) is used as a reference to how it links to the present, which they will stubbornly cling to.

Si as witch/senex: the person parents others by noticing current tangible data. If this is ignored, they will turn to stored tangible data to criticize things by.

Si as trickster: Sensory pleasure is a source of childlike relief. If this is threatened, they will reference memorized experiences to get the person off their back.

Si as demon: the person, immersed in the world of Ni, ultimately wants some connection to the tangible world, usually the present. Under stress, they may turn from present to past reality.




Source (in case the OP would also like to read about Ni): http://www.erictb.info/archetypes.html

 

[FDG]

ENTjs are typically lighter, absent-minded, a bit scatter-brained and generally more nervous and energetic; they can also easily start conversation with random strangers, quickly make friends - even though they might not be very tactful during such attempts. Generally more easygoing, except for intellectual matters they're interested in. ESTjs come across as focussed and very well attuned to their environment, well-dressed, calm and just more socially integrated; they're also much better with details. However, they're usually more controlling and less likely to purposefully get in touch with someone they don't already have an estabilished relation with.

Basically, the "vibe" of these two types is really different.

 

[Cimarron]

Si is similar to Ni in that it attaches symbolic meaning to objects and concepts, but for the Si user, the symbolism is purely archetypal and may be completely subconscious...so instead of contemplating what a clock symbolically means, they will have an immediate...hrm...feeling association with clocks, or at least with clocks which look a certain way.

Or I think of it as "having an impression" of what clocks are like. (But it means the same as you said, it's an impression we feel to determine what is a clock and what is not)

 

[skylights]

Or I think of it as "having an impression" of what clocks are like. (But it means the same as you said, it's an impression we feel to determine what is a clock and what is not)

I have recently read that Si can be likened to Plato's Forms, sort of "archetypes" of objects. Whereas Ni distills dynamic processes into process-archetypes (eg, rebirth), Si distills static objects into object-archetypes (eg, clock).

Sorry lady, but what I described was Si. But, ESTJ's can come out of their, "closed minded" and "traditional" ways if they develop Ne

I think Marm's done a great job of clarifying why this is wrong, but I just want to underscore that Si users ARE NOT inherently closed-minded traditionalists.

It's totally this:

this means they may be most comfortable with the way things consistently are in their world, which *may* mean they uphold tradition...but only because it's personally meaningful to them in their own life and household and upbringing.

My mom and boyfriend are both ESFJs, and they are by no means closed-minded traditionalists. Interestingly enough, I have more interest in "upholding tradition" than either of them - I tend to be the one pushing for doing the same thing every year or making sure we celebrate certain holidays, and so on. They are both more practical and efficient than most people, readily discarding that which does not work and replacing it with more effective solutions. Neither one is closed-minded at all; both are politically and socially liberal, both are agnostics, and both keep abreast of current affairs.

So sure Te may enforce rules and Fe may enforce social norms. But I think cultural tradition is a lot more complex than saying a particular function or type is responsible for it. I tend to find culture beautiful and deeply important to the human psyche. Tradition is a part of culture, it gives people a tie to where they come from and their own past...and yes, we could say Si has something to do with that. I don't know. One of my interests is cultural preservation. I also like history. I think if we forget our collective past we are doomed to repeat it. [...]

I wouldn't separate Si as far away from the past as you're trying to do, because yes, Si does have to do with the past BUT A HIGHLY PERSONAL INTERIOR PAST. It would require Fe or Te to enforce that highly personal interior past upon others.

Right, exactly. What I have found with ESFJ boy is that he'll assume things based on his past experience (and totally throw me for a loop). He tends to assume things like my family has been to most restaurants in the area, because we've lived there for a long time, or that I feel certain ways about certain things because his past girlfriends felt certain ways about certain things. On one hand, it's really not a bad ruler to go by - over time, his experiences will deepen and complexify his understanding of what is likely to be, and he will indeed internalize common patterns for static Si-things (eg, [most] women [tend to] like flowers). On the other hand, sometimes it seems like he's not taking the time to collect information about new situations, and in that respect his auxiliary Si can frustrate me - but that's how J first tends to work - Judgments first and Perceiving later. Like Marm explained, Si is likely to be more "forceful" in ESxJs because they primarily Judge and use Si to back up their Judgments (and, for that matter, spend less time refining the content of their Si). Same holds true for ENxJs and Ni, and ExFPs and Fi, and everyone and their auxiliary function - it will be less developed and more blunt, and tend to seem more "controlling" of other people.

Oh, and ESFJ boyfriend is a snappy dresser, and does not tend to wear suits unless the occasion calls for it (though he looks great in one ).

Valkyrian - Your boyfriend sounds like he could easily be either, but based on this:

In many ways, he understands what I'm trying to say, but he will completely misunderstand me in other ways. There is a slight difference when I compare our conversations to those with my INTJ friend, who more easily picks up on the meaning of what I'm trying to put into words. My boyfriend requires more explanation from me when I'm trying to express an abstract thought, as he will often take it the wrong way.

I suspect ESTJ. I have the same experience with my boyfriend, that it takes more explanation to get him to understand my meaning and intentions when I am discussing things in the abstract. Though it could also be the nature of dominant T in tending to grasp logical concepts first and holistic concepts later.