ENFP/INFP

[Eric B]

oh come on. I am teaching myself vector calculus right now (so that I can understand theoretical meteorology) , I just wrote paper on a book I read about economic development in China, and I've probably read more material on psychological types than you plan to read in your lifetime. I also read Lee Smolin's book "The trouble with physics" last year. So what if you didn't fit in with a discussion group, those people are there because they identify with the stereotype of ENFP. And I bet that only some are actually ENFPs.

Now read the type caption under my name. Do you trust that?

Well, I didn't say that no ENFP could ever get into intellectual things. (which is why I would even try on the type in the first place. I know with the Ne, they will have the capacity for it). Just the obvservation that my "thinking" seems to fit an NTP type more, yet the question that was raised was whether the thinking is preferred and introverted, or nonpreferred and extraverted.

 

[Dom]

I'm leaning more towards what I would call a "passive ENTP", for now. ENTP sounds a bit too "rambunctious" to be me (It's a SanChlor, after all, and expressive in both Inclsuion and Control!) but as my Inclusion is what has been called a "passive Sanguine", then my interaction style could be called "passive Get Things Going" (I also look at it as "hyper-Behind the Scenes"), and the type therefore is "passive ENTP". Thus I also have the I/E ambiguities, but I can live with those much better than the T/F issues of trying to fit into an ENFP.

OK; that's a discussion on the archetypes. Those are really interesting, and what were used to type me as ENFP. But I believe people looked at outward behavior only. Mostly, it was a so-called "personality type coach" who is fluent in Beebe's concepts who insisted on ENFP, but I'm seeing now that her motivation was that all my theorizing rubbing her the wrong way, and she picked up Te in my discussions, which is in her shadow, and said it must have been in the puer (tertiary) position, making me seem like an E-FP. I took her word for it, and I did seem to relate to both Fi and Te, but now I'm thinking those are less natural (and actually in my shadow) than Ti. She has a way of interpreting everything that I think might be Ti either as Te, or a "trickster" Ti. I am after all, working with a framework (FIRO's E/R), that I am using to compare the two systems. She claims all this putting things together "like jigsaw pieces" is Te. Maybe some of it is. But looking back on my whole lifetime of thought, I think Ti stuff is much more natural to me, and Te is just something I learned in order to deal with all the Te types I grew up with, and to express my ideas (and this same person points out that American society is basically modeled after the ESTJ. Makes a lot of sense).

Then, I also did a rough shortcut to the Step II subscales, which also suggested ENFP. But again, I think I may have graded them too highly on the "feeling" side, thinking that "values" were more important to me than they really are. It seems many things that seem like Fi values, with me really have some underlying intellectual framework behind them.

So again, do my writings seem more Ti or Te to everyone?

I have no idea, I do not manage to understand the differences between Ti and Te in any sense other than intuitively which could give me false info for sure.

I'm surprised by your approach, several tests and experts have asserted that they think you are an ENFP, yet you strive to find evidence to call yourself ENTP and then add that you are unsure about the e/i preference. This suggests that you MAY have some personal preference as to which label you should be assigned to wear. Iw as wondering if you'd considered that?

Other than that, as an ENFP I know I have values I believe in, and strongly, I also know I can ditch them when I 'think' it's important enough too. It causes problems at times, and so I end up second guessing which course of action I actually want to do most, the one my values suggest I WANT to do, or the one my brain suggests is BEST for me to do.

Someone described the ENFP as the introverted-extrovert. Which is obviously a contradiction in terms, but this could be were you are surprising yourself and thus reject the ENFP designation.

Your argument also implies Te, your discussion is full of references to what others have said to you and how your introspection has caused you to doubt their initially accepted suggestion. However, rather than processing this in an introverted fashion and deciding what you think, you take your concerns and present it to the out side world to add it's tuppence worth. While I'm butchering the process, it seems your entire discussion is about seeking agreement for your observation, thus extroversion.

As for the jigsaw.. if that honestly is Te, then I know as an ENFP this is my primary way of problem solving and piecing together my thoughts and arguments, take this concept and that concept (assuming they are both relevant to the idea/topic under discussion) and work out how they fit together.

Just some rudimentary thoughts.

 

[Dom]

Well, I didn't say that no ENFP could ever get into intellectual things. (which is why I would even try on the type in the first place. I know with the Ne, they will have the capacity for it). Just the obvservation that my "thinking" seems to fit an NTP type more, yet the question that was raised was whether the thinking is preferred and introverted, or nonpreferred and extraverted.

With my ENTP and INTP best mates I have debated everything you can think of! I also had to master n dimensional vector calculous (which I have since thankfully been able to forget) while studyinf fro a physics degree. I'm currently completing my History degree and am in the top 10% of my year, I made it onto the Dean's list for a university I did an exchange semester in America with.

ENFPs can think and do think deeply and intellectually about things. The presentation can some times be wooly. However you have joined some enfp yahoo groups; have you ever considered that you could be an exceptionally bright enfp? And thus the fluffiness you disliked in those forums could be due to that? I joined INTPc and before I grew to weary of argueing with random unknown people across the net, enjoyed the topics, depth and level of debate their rather than other more nf orinated places. I totally disliked the INTP stubborness and introverted assurance that they are right regardless. They argue, not to learn from you, but to teach you were you went wrong.



OK, you are considering your type bases upon yoru evaluation of how you think about problems. If you are prepared to, let look at something which should demonstrate the ENFP/ENTP difference. Could you talk to us about the last very difficult personal decision that you had to make about your personal life, and how/ehy you chose to do what you did?

 

[Eric B]

I'm surprised by your approach, several tests and experts have asserted that they think you are an ENFP, yet you strive to find evidence to call yourself ENTP and then add that you are unsure about the e/i preference. This suggests that you MAY have some personal preference as to which label you should be assigned to wear. Iw as wondering if you'd considered that?

Well, for one thing; I'm reading more about the functions as all of this is going on, and thinking about it, and then realizing how much I tend to use one over the other. Sometimes as you know, it's hard to know the difference between not only Te and Ti, but also Fi and Ti. So I might read a description or a test question and say "yeah, I do that", but I still could have mistaken a "principle" for a "value" (the line between them is often blurry, or a function projected outward from one turned inward.

The only test that suggested ENFP was my taking the 20 Step II (EAR) subscales and scoring them (from 0-10) directly (at the request of someone I was discussing my type with. And he thought I was INTP until that). But now I looking back over it, I may have overestimated the Feeling questions and underestimated the Thinking ones. Already, I had one out-of-pattern subscale (OOPS), Questioning over Accomodating. This I believe is part of the "Choleric" aspect of my personality that is lacking in the ENFP profile, and is more NTish.

The "only "expert" was a type coach on one of the boards, and as I said, she let too much of her own issues into it to be totally objective. She "had" to prove I was ENFP so she could say the "puer" (Te) brought out her "witch". I listened to her since she really seemed to know this stuff a lot, but ultimately, as even she said, only I can determine my type, and people of course are looking at what is seen on the outside, but sometimes what is inside can be different. Plus, I have been under a lot of stress lately, and I think things might be a bit skewed, as I look back deeply over which functions I really have gravitated to over the course of my life.

The ultimate reason I have preferred an NT type over NF is because the NT's are pragmatic and Structure-oriented (Keirsey and Berens' terms, respectively), while NF is cooperative and motive oriented; and the former is what would describe me better. I may weigh things and behave cooperatively, but my gut instinct and inclination is pragmatic, with a logical "structure". This also seemed to match my being "Choleric" in the area of leadership and responsibilites. The ENFP seemed to lack this key aspect of my personality. Yes, this may tie into my own theory as to how two systems tie together, but I did try to remain objective, and seriously looked into ENFP, but it just did not completely fit, and then when I better grasped what the Ti traits were, and remembered how much I actually use and enjoy them (frameworks, leverage points, etc), it became more clear that that is really more preferred, and Te is the real "shadow" function I learned as a defense mechanism, from being surreounded by it when I was younger.

Someone described the ENFP as the introverted-extrovert. Which is obviously a contradiction in terms, but this could be were you are surprising yourself and thus reject the ENFP designation.

In the temperament analysis I use, I fall into a fifth temperament who "expresses" as an introvert, and "responds" as an extrovert. (It is the one in the upper left of my avatar). Expression is what we "say" we want (so he looks like an introvert aho avoids people) yet responsiveness is what we "really" want, so his wants are the same as an extrovert. That would partially explain this, and it can apparently fall into any NP (informing) type. (ENTP is also said to be an introverted extrovert).

Your argument also implies Te, your discussion is full of references to what others have said to you and how your introspection has caused you to doubt their initially accepted suggestion. However, rather than processing this in an introverted fashion and deciding what you think, you take your concerns and present it to the out side world to add it's tuppence worth. While I'm butchering the process, it seems your entire discussion is about seeking agreement for your observation, thus extroversion.

That's basically what the coach was saying. That's why I didn't dispute at first, but after doing a lot of reflection, it seems this is more of a defense mechanism to try to be heard. I do process it inside first. It's like I do both, but I have learned to try to present it to the outside world also. And apparently, I'm not very good at it, or at least not very effective; suggesting that Te is not a naturally preferred process at all; depsite what the coach was seeing.

ENFPs can think and do think deeply and intellectually about things. The presentation can some times be wooly. However you have joined some enfp yahoo groups; have you ever considered that you could be an exceptionally bright enfp? And thus the fluffiness you disliked in those forums could be due to that?

I thought of that. (I didn't dislike the fluffiness; I was just looking for a more intellectual discussion of the theories at the time). Still, it seems there is a fundamental type difference. I seem to have more intellectual chemistry with INTP's such as Xander and others than any ENFP I have run across.

I joined INTPc and before I grew to weary of argueing with random unknown people across the net, enjoyed the topics, depth and level of debate their rather than other more nf orinated places. I totally disliked the INTP stubborness and introverted assurance that they are right regardless. They argue, not to learn from you, but to teach you were you went wrong.

I have always had a tendency to be like that (in intellectual matters, at least), though I have always had someone around to correct me to not be like that, and it has increased my "conscience" in that area. That's another reason I seem to fit that type better, and that any Fi and Te was learned from the environment.

OK, you are considering your type bases upon yoru evaluation of how you think about problems. If you are prepared to, let look at something which should demonstrate the ENFP/ENTP difference. Could you talk to us about the last very difficult personal decision that you had to make about your personal life, and how/ehy you chose to do what you did?

OK' I'll have to think on that one. What to use as a good example.

 

[Eric B]

Eric,
Try checking this thread out MBTI dissection - The Puddin' and see if that helps your dissection. I believe it's more along your lines of how to think about the MBTI.

Just read the whole thing, finally, and it was very interesting. That elfinchilde really breaks this stuff down well. And someone said she posts over here too? (And it looks like the same Jennifer is over there as well).
Well, then, her's my cognitiveprocesses results:

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ****************** (18.3)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) *********************************** (35.2)
good use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) *********************************************** (47.7)
excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ******************* (19)
limited use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ********************* (21.2)
limited use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ***************************************** (41.5)
excellent use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ************* (13)
unused
introverted Feeling (Fi) ******************************************* (43.5)
excellent use

Summary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: INFP

Lead (Dominant) Process
Introverted Feeling (Fi): Staying true to who you really are. Paying close attention to your personal identity, values and beliefs. Checking with your conscience. Choosing behavior congruent with what is important to you.

Support (Auxilliary) Process
Extraverted Intuiting (Ne): Exploring the emerging patterns. Wondering about patterns of interaction across various situations. Checking what hypotheses and meanings fit best. Trusting what emerges as you shift a situation's dynamics.

If these cognitive processes don't fit well then consider these types: ENFP, or INTP

If these results are different from what you know of yourself, you might consider why your developmental pattern does not align with your expectation. You might also consider exploring this result as a possible better fit.

The Four Temperaments
Corresponding best-fit temperaments based on your profile: Theorist; secondly Catalyst; then Improviser; and lastly, Stabilizer.

Like with the EAR, I may have overestimated Fi (and also underestimated Fe!) I plan to take it over when I'm sure I understand the function definitions better.

Still funny it would suggst INFP, but then say the temperament is Theorist!

So particularly on p.5 of that thread, where she breaks down INTP, sounds like it could explain things. We may still be stronger or weaker at any function despite which place it has in the archetypes. I particularly like what evan said (which also pertains to the above response to Dom):

other extroverted functions influence the introverted ones and vice versa. Eg, an ENTP can look like a Te user since Ne acts out Ti's conclusions.

 

[Dom]

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ****************************** (30)
average use
introverted Sensing (Si) ***************************** (29)
average use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ******************************* (31.1)
good use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ********************* (21.7)
limited use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ************************ (24.7)
average use
introverted Thinking (Ti) ********************************* (33.1)
good use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ************************************ (36)
excellent use
introverted Feeling (Fi) *********************************** (35)
good use


Summary Analysis of Profile
By focusing on the strongest configuration of cognitive processes, your pattern of responses most closely matches individuals of this type: ENFP


oh dear... What a supprise... lol I do feel for your situation, I have always and consisently scored as the same thing... so I've no idea what it is like to feel justified in playing with ones type...

 

[Eric B]

Feel justified in playing with one's type?

I wouldn't say it was a matter of being justified; it's a matter of sorting out our true preferences, and it's easy to misunderstand some of the questions. Already that test made me both an INFP and a Theorist at the same time.

 

[Dom]

Feel justified in playing with one's type?

I wouldn't say it was a matter of being justified; it's a matter of sorting out our true preferences, and it's easy to misunderstand some of the questions. Already that test made me both an INFP and a Theorist at the same time.

How can we sort out our true prefernces? How on earth can we observe ourselves objectively enough? I'd love to say I can, and would defend the process of introspection which has brought me to the understanding of myself thus far, but I can't pretend that I'mnot looking at myself through a paradigm which is constructed and approved by me and the definations I use.

I could believe introvert sensing was directly linked to my ability to stand on my head (which like introverted sensing isn't my strong point)...

A rather silly simillie but i hope you see my point...

By justified, I simply mean there is enough evidence to convince others that my type is uncertain. I've never had a test show anything other than ENFP, so I'd feel utterly arrogant in redefining this. that and the other to empower me with an arguement for why I'm really INTP. If a test couldn't make up its mind, then I'd feel justified in playing. Say I test enfp 55% of the time and entp the rest, then I'd be curious and fiddle with it and I'd feel justified in doing so.

As for questions on tests and the like, take the test we did above, I refused to agree that I liked to weave into a theory RANDOM contexts. I said I liked it a bit. Now other people would say I do this all the time, I disagree as I rarely add something that I think is genuiningly random. There is always an intuitive link, and if there is a link then it isn't random. It's like another question that asked about looking for random links and patterns... well if there are links and patterns then it isn't random...

However, by sticking to my defination of random, my extroverted intution score is lower than it should be, something people doing the test for me wouldn't have missed.

I guess I'm pointing toward asserting that you can't merely choose your own type, while I agree that you know what happens in your head best, if other people do not recognise the preference in you then it has to be difficult to finally rest upon it.

 

[Gabe]

Well, I didn't say that no ENFP could ever get into intellectual things. (which is why I would even try on the type in the first place. I know with the Ne, they will have the capacity for it). Just the obvservation that my "thinking" seems to fit an NTP type more, yet the question that was raised was whether the thinking is preferred and introverted, or nonpreferred and extraverted.

hmmm. What I'm thinking is that I've liked and been frustrated with both NTP and NTJ theorists, so you should notice what process you are communicating well with an NFP with. Make sure not to confuse the processes. If you're communicating well with extraverted intuition, but are confused by thier thinking (if you're an ENFP it just looks like a fairly subtle naming process), then it's an NTP. If you can communicate logic well with them, but cannot communicate your imagination, then it's an NTJ (and with theorists who are good at explaining stuff, you CAN go a long time before realizing they are using a different process than you some of the time). This is all assuming that you ARE an ENFP.
Depending on which process is frustrating you more, you might very well enjoy the company of the NTPs you've met more than the NTJs you've met, but that wouldn't make you an NTP.

So I had an INTJ friend who's also a meteorology major, and in the arena of 'picture it in your head', we can't usually communicate. However, I learned a bunch about how to read thermodynamic diagrams (Te) from him. And in general, he's easy to understand. Then there's my INTJ calculus teacher. He annoyed the hell out of my by the end of this term (and he ended multivariable calculus and only barely started teaching line integrals, how lame is that?). He was generally irritable, thought he was a lot more funny than he was, totally freaked when he smelled pot in the classroom (it was coming through a vent). Whenever I asked him an extraverted intuition question, he had a little spasm, said he didn't know what I was talking about, and said that I made him forget what he was talking about. And when I came up with a quick way of getting the equation for a plane, he made me redo it because it wasn't the *right* way. He really pissed me off.

I could tell you similar stories of INTPs. I have an INTP friend who goes to MIT. He is great. He'll answer any question I have about anything. My INTP chemistry teacher, on the other hand was *nice*, but his lectures were confusing as hell, he overcomplicated everything, and he covered extremely hard and extremely easy material at exactly the same pace.

 

[Eric B]

I don't seem to be confused by the NTP's thinking at all, but can relate to it very well, and am very inspired by it as well. And they seem to understand me better than others as well. (This is part of what I meant by fitting or having intellectual chemistry with them).

 

[Gabe]

Well, for one thing; I'm reading more about the functions as all of this is going on, and thinking about it, and then realizing how much I tend to use one over the other. Sometimes as you know, it's hard to know the difference between not only Te and Ti, but also Fi and Ti. So I might read a description or a test question and say "yeah, I do that", but I still could have mistaken a "principle" for a "value" (the line between them is often blurry, or a function projected outward from one turned inward.

The only test that suggested ENFP was my taking the 20 Step II (EAR) subscales and scoring them (from 0-10) directly (at the request of someone I was discussing my type with. And he thought I was INTP until that). But now I looking back over it, I may have overestimated the Feeling questions and underestimated the Thinking ones. Already, I had one out-of-pattern subscale (OOPS), Questioning over Accomodating. This I believe is part of the "Choleric" aspect of my personality that is lacking in the ENFP profile, and is more NTish.

The "only "expert" was a type coach on one of the boards, and as I said, she let too much of her own issues into it to be totally objective. She "had" to prove I was ENFP so she could say the "puer" (Te) brought out her "witch". I listened to her since she really seemed to know this stuff a lot, but ultimately, as even she said, only I can determine my type, and people of course are looking at what is seen on the outside, but sometimes what is inside can be different. Plus, I have been under a lot of stress lately, and I think things might be a bit skewed, as I look back deeply over which functions I really have gravitated to over the course of my life.

The ultimate reason I have preferred an NT type over NF is because the NT's are pragmatic and Structure-oriented (Keirsey and Berens' terms, respectively), while NF is cooperative and motive oriented; and the former is what would describe me better. I may weigh things and behave cooperatively, but my gut instinct and inclination is pragmatic, with a logical "structure". This also seemed to match my being "Choleric" in the area of leadership and responsibilites. The ENFP seemed to lack this key aspect of my personality. Yes, this may tie into my own theory as to how two systems tie together, but I did try to remain objective, and seriously looked into ENFP, but it just did not completely fit, and then when I better grasped what the Ti traits were, and remembered how much I actually use and enjoy them (frameworks, leverage points, etc), it became more clear that that is really more preferred, and Te is the real "shadow" function I learned as a defense mechanism, from being surreounded by it when I was younger.

In the temperament analysis I use, I fall into a fifth temperament who "expresses" as an introvert, and "responds" as an extrovert. (It is the one in the upper left of my avatar). Expression is what we "say" we want (so he looks like an introvert aho avoids people) yet responsiveness is what we "really" want, so his wants are the same as an extrovert. That would partially explain this, and it can apparently fall into any NP (informing) type. (ENTP is also said to be an introverted extrovert).

That's basically what the coach was saying. That's why I didn't dispute at first, but after doing a lot of reflection, it seems this is more of a defense mechanism to try to be heard. I do process it inside first. It's like I do both, but I have learned to try to present it to the outside world also. And apparently, I'm not very good at it, or at least not very effective; suggesting that Te is not a naturally preferred process at all; depsite what the coach was seeing.

I thought of that. (I didn't dislike the fluffiness; I was just looking for a more intellectual discussion of the theories at the time). Still, it seems there is a fundamental type difference. I seem to have more intellectual chemistry with INTP's such as Xander and others than any ENFP I have run across.
I have always had a tendency to be like that (in intellectual matters, at least), though I have always had someone around to correct me to not be like that, and it has increased my "conscience" in that area. That's another reason I seem to fit that type better, and that any Fi and Te was learned from the environment.


OK' I'll have to think on that one. What to use as a good example.

Than any "enfp" you have run across. Oh, when will people stop with that crap? You're talking about people on online chat groups right?

uhh, hey, yes, Vicky Jo has also helped me with my type. I find that the archetypes ARE usefull. If a certian archetype got triggered, someone was using that process to some degree.

It's interesting that you speak of 'intellectual chemistry'. The beginning of the Berens+Nardi description of ENFP says that relationships for ENFPs are about 'being on the same wavelength'.

ENFPS ARE choleric in the temperment models, in the temperment model, choleric=idealist.

Ok, I see you were 'out of preference' for one of the facets in the MBTI step two. I only keep a copy of the sample 'step two interactive report' to remind myself what a useless piece of junk it is. I am probably 'off preference' on most of the thinking-feeling 'facets'. What-ever.

hmm. I have to admit that I am totally not convinced by your analysis. And you are still using Te!! You are zooming through the material, and there's 'underestimate this', 'overestimate that'. You're still throwing the numbers around, and adding this and subtracting that. I can picture it. There's a room with all these dials and gauges, and that's Te. And you're (puer?) Te thinks it knows what each of those gauges is, but you need to be just a bit more carefull, and you have made some mistakes and read some of the dials wrong. I remember doing that kind of assuming I got-it Te- and of course it's not neccesarily verbalized. When I got into trouble with extraverted thinking was when I used to assume I could do math in my head, and skip writing down stuff that way. I also used to write horrible papers because I never kept a logical connection going between paragraphs, and when I got Cs I'd defend myself with "they must be pretending not to get it". On the other hand, there is almost NO Ti in what you wrote. You don't pause or mull over any definitions. Instead it's This reason+this reason+this reason= NTP, which, ironically, signals Te very clearly to me.

And if you can relate to this, then you might have trickster Ti: when I watched "The sting", I thought it was an entertaining movie, but the 20s crime jargon drove me nuts. I had no idea what the characters were talking about some of the time, and at some points I was stopping the movie every few minutes to ask what one of those words meant.

What do you think?

 

["?"]

No one can or should tell you your type, especially from a forum. Even if they know you intimately, this is a life lesson only you can decide on. If you are merely stuck between the two NFPs, then you may ask yourself whether your interaction style is more:

Behind-the-Scenes

The theme is getting the best result possible. People of this style focus on understanding and working with the process to create a positive outcome. They see value in many contributions and consult outside inputs to make an informed decision. They aim to integrate various information sources and accommodate differing points of view. They approach others with a quiet, calm style that may not show their strong convictions. Producing, sustaining, defining, and clarifying are all ways they support a group's process. They typically have more patience than most with the time it takes to gain support through consensus for a project or to refine the result.

-OR-

Get-Things-Going

The theme is persuading and involving others. They thrive in facilitator or catalyst roles and aim to inspire others to move to action, facilitating the process. Their focus is on interaction, often with an expressive style. They Get-Things-Going with upbeat energy, enthusiasm, or excitement, which can be contagious. Exploring options and possibilities, making preparations, discovering new ideas, and sharing insights are all ways they get people moving along. They want decisions to be participative and enthusiastic, with everyone involved and engaged.

Although most of us fall in between on the functions, you should be able to discern one or the other.

 

[Eric B]

Than any "enfp" you have run across. Oh, when will people stop with that crap? You're talking about people on online chat groups right?

I know that's not a perfect measure, but for starters, it does give an idea of which type I gravitate to more.

uhh, hey, yes, Vicky Jo has also helped me with my type.

It's interesting that you speak of 'intellectual chemistry'. The beginning of the Berens+Nardi description of ENFP says that relationships for ENFPs are about 'being on the same wavelength'.

Maybe, but then Ti types like "expert relationships" as well. I thought I favored the NF's "connection" better, (and indicated this on tests) and I may like the idea of it a lot, but in an area like this, I really do prefer the expertise. That's how I could even continue to respect VJ, for her expertise.

ENFPS ARE choleric in the temperment models, in the temperment model, choleric=idealist.

And this is the one area where I believe Keirsey was wrong. (Though it wasn't really an integral element of his theory; it was just a passing reference to maintain the continuity with ancient temperament theory). Cholerics are more Thinking than Feeling. Clearly, the NT's desire for "mastery" and "competence" is more a Choleric trait than the NF, which got the Choleric tag simply because of its "exciteability". The NF's desire for connection with others is also not Choleric. Cholerics generally reject people.

So that's why I do not seem to fit into any of the NF's. It was only the cognitive dynamics approach that possibly suggested it, but after thinking on this for some time, I again now think that has been skewed by circumstances.

Ok, I see you were 'out of preference' for one of the facets in the MBTI step two. I only keep a copy of the sample 'step two interactive report' to remind myself what a useless piece of junk it is. I am probably 'off preference' on most of the thinking-feeling 'facets'. What-ever.

It breaks all this down into smaller parts. The smaller the parts, the more accuracy you will get. It's like in trying to understand the universe. First, they said atoms. then, they broke it down into quarks. More recently, it is strings, and they continue to ask if anything is more fundamental than that. If I have that OOPS, it's good for that to be pointed out; else, the traits it is picking up will always cast a question mark over the type.
(And breaking things down into smaller parts is supposed to be a Ti thing. You may not like it, but it makes perfect sense to me, and this is the sort of thing that is pointing more towards Ti than whatever "thinking" I might appear to be extraverting).

hmm. I have to admit that I am totally not convinced by your analysis. And you are still using Te!! You are zooming through the material, and there's 'underestimate this', 'overestimate that'. You're still throwing the numbers around, and adding this and subtracting that. I can picture it. There's a room with all these dials and gauges, and that's Te. And you're (puer?) Te thinks it knows what each of those gauges is, but you need to be just a bit more carefull, and you have made some mistakes and read some of the dials wrong. I remember doing that kind of assuming I got-it Te- and of course it's not neccesarily verbalized. On the other hand, there is almost NO Ti in what you wrote. You don't pause or mull over any definitions. Instead it's This reason+this reason+this reason= NTP, which, ironically, signals Te very clearly to me.

OK, "pausing" and "mulling"? Aren't those more internal processes? You're not going to see that! But that doesn't mean I am not pausing and mulling over it first, before I write down whatever. (and a lot of my time making posts, especially big ones, is rushed, so that affects the writing as well).

And then I do have to express it somehow. And the way I have basically taught myself to express things is through the Te model (I never said I wasn't using it at all!), because that's what I became so used to in seeing others around me express logic.
Like Ti types never speak of underestimating or overestimating, or "throw numbers", add and subtract, put things together, charts, etc.? Most of the great theorists in this area are Ti types, and you can find all of this in their books (unless they have a Te type come in and do all of that for them). So that does not prove that it is my primary thinking process.

As for the "dials/guages", when VJ first said something like that (and you are sounding so much like her, in using these analogies to generalize specific behaviors into a whole preference), I went along with it, but after thinking on all of this, it is clear that I did not just enter a room of dials and just start turning them or assigning stuff. For over a year, I intensely analyzed this stuff, read every type and function description I could find, compared types, looked for common threads in the comparisons, basically, broke it down to see how it works, and most importantly measured it according to a framework I had internalized (expressive and responsive behavior). I then gradually worked out the correlations I have suggested. I then announced it at one point on the other board.
So maybe it looked like I just popped in and started organizing, segmenting, sorting and applying logic, but once again, you're not seeing the entire internal process that went before that. (And I'm doing all of this alone, so whatever "Te" work has to be done, I have to do myself). And remember, as someone had pointed out; an ENTP can look like a Te user because of the Ne acting out Ti's conclusions. (Again; I'm not arguing the E/I preference now). The "thinking" therefore appears to get "extraverted" to those it is being discussed with.

You can't always look at outside behavior. Because behavior can be learned, and there are "masks" people wear. And even in type theory, I see it is taught that stress can bring out a person's shadows. One person even mentioned to me the notion of an "active shadow", and I wish I could find more out about it, but the searches don't put together the two words. Again, Te (and Fi) seems more the "shadowy" function that I have just learned in defense (an "oppositional" stance. And defending ideas is basically a sort of defensive position. Yet other writings, people do say are Ti-ish).

When I got into trouble with extraverted thinking was when I used to assume I could do math in my head, and skip writing down stuff that way. I also used to write horrible papers because I never kept a logical connection going between paragraphs, and when I got Cs I'd defend myself with "they must be pretending not to get it".

So as pertaining to Te vs Ti, are you saying that Te needs to write it down (and Ti does not)? And Te doesn't keep logical connections?

And if you can relate to this, then you might have trickster Ti: when I watched "The sting", I thought it was an entertaining movie, but the 20s crime jargon drove me nuts. I had no idea what the characters were talking about some of the time, and at some points I was stopping the movie every few minutes to ask what one of those words meant.

What do you think?

I don't think I have had that kind of problem with things. It may happen once in a while, but I can generally get meanings from the contexts.

I had wondered about Ti being "trickster". According to Berens, "they are usually not interested in identifying principles or categorizing, but under stress, they tend to be deceived into engaging, accepting and rigidly following selected principles, thinking that doing so will ensure success, when really it won't. ...Yet at times they can delight in exploring models and frameworks". That would seem to fit right into VJ's assessment (even though she did not even come right out and say this part of it), yet again, people cannot see the internal processes, and neither my whole lifetime of processes, which I have been remembering in light of this more and more, especially as I come to understand it more. Models and frameworks are what I have always used and delight in most of the time, and clearly, it is the Te that seems to be more associated with "stress". This is why I have recently gone back on accepting ENFP as the type.
The descriptions of the NTP's "shadowy" use of it fits me better than the ENFP's "relief" use, which seems much better at establishing order than I am. I once confessed to liking organizing, but I seem to seem to like the idea of it better than I can actually do it.

 

[Gabe]

I know that's not a perfect measure, but for starters, it does give an idea of which type I gravitate to more.



Maybe, but then Ti types like "expert relationships" as well. I thought I favored the NF's "connection" better, (and indicated this on tests) and I may like the idea of it a lot, but in an area like this, I really do prefer the expertise. That's how I could even continue to respect VJ, for her expertise.
And this is the one area where I believe Keirsey was wrong. (Though it wasn't really an integral element of his theory; it was just a passing reference to maintain the continuity with ancient temperament theory). Cholerics are more Thinking than Feeling. Clearly, the NT's desire for "mastery" and "competence" is more a Choleric trait than the NF, which got the Choleric tag simply because of its "exciteability". The NF's desire for connection with others is also not Choleric. Cholerics generally reject people.

So that's why I do not seem to fit into any of the NF's. It was only the cognitive dynamics approach that possibly suggested it, but after thinking on this for some time, I again now think that has been skewed by circumstances.

It breaks all this down into smaller parts. The smaller the parts, the more accuracy you will get. It's like in trying to understand the universe. First, they said atoms. then, they broke it down into quarks. More recently, it is strings, and they continue to ask if anything is more fundamental than that. If I have that OOPS, it's good for that to be pointed out; else, the traits it is picking up will always cast a question mark over the type.
(And breaking things down into smaller parts is supposed to be a Ti thing. You may not like it, but it makes perfect sense to me, and this is the sort of thing that is pointing more towards Ti than whatever "thinking" I might appear to be extraverting).

OK, "pausing" and "mulling"? Aren't those more internal processes? You're not going to see that! But that doesn't mean I am not pausing and mulling over it first, before I write down whatever. (and a lot of my time making posts, especially big ones, is rushed, so that affects the writing as well).

And then I do have to express it somehow. And the way I have basically taught myself to express things is through the Te model (I never said I wasn't using it at all!), because that's what I became so used to in seeing others around me express logic.
Like Ti types never speak of underestimating or overestimating, or "throw numbers", add and subtract, put things together, charts, etc.? Most of the great theorists in this area are Ti types, and you can find all of this in their books (unless they have a Te type come in and do all of that for them). So that does not prove that it is my primary thinking process.

As for the "dials/guages", when VJ first said something like that (and you are sounding so much like her, in using these analogies to generalize specific behaviors into a whole preference), I went along with it, but after thinking on all of this, it is clear that I did not just enter a room of dials and just start turning them or assigning stuff. For over a year, I intensely analyzed this stuff, read every type and function description I could find, compared types, looked for common threads in the comparisons, basically, broke it down to see how it works, and most importantly measured it according to a framework I had internalized (expressive and responsive behavior). I then gradually worked out the correlations I have suggested. I then announced it at one point on the other board.
So maybe it looked like I just popped in and started organizing, segmenting, sorting and applying logic, but once again, you're not seeing the entire internal process that went before that. (And I'm doing all of this alone, so whatever "Te" work has to be done, I have to do myself). And remember, as someone had pointed out; an ENTP can look like a Te user because of the Ne acting out Ti's conclusions. (Again; I'm not arguing the E/I preference now). The "thinking" therefore appears to get "extraverted" to those it is being discussed with.

You can't always look at outside behavior. Because behavior can be learned, and there are "masks" people wear. And even in type theory, I see it is taught that stress can bring out a person's shadows. One person even mentioned to me the notion of an "active shadow", and I wish I could find more out about it, but the searches don't put together the two words. Again, Te (and Fi) seems more the "shadowy" function that I have just learned in defense (an "oppositional" stance. And defending ideas is basically a sort of defensive position. Yet other writings, people do say are Ti-ish).
So as pertaining to Te vs Ti, are you saying that Te needs to write it down (and Ti does not)? And Te doesn't keep logical connections?

I don't think I have had that kind of problem with things. It may happen once in a while, but I can generally get meanings from the contexts.

I had wondered about Ti being "trickster". According to Berens, "they are usually not interested in identifying principles or categorizing, but under stress, they tend to be deceived into engaging, accepting and rigidly following selected principles, thinking that doing so will ensure success, when really it won't. ...Yet at times they can delight in exploring models and frameworks". That would seem to fit right into VJ's assessment (even though she did not even come right out and say this part of it), yet again, people cannot see the internal processes, and neither my whole lifetime of processes, which I have been remembering in light of this more and more, especially as I come to understand it more. Models and frameworks are what I have always used and delight in most of the time, and clearly, it is the Te that seems to be more associated with "stress". This is why I have recently gone back on accepting ENFP as the type.
The descriptions of the NTP's "shadowy" use of it fits me better than the ENFP's "relief" use, which seems much better at establishing order than I am. I once confessed to liking organizing, but I seem to seem to like the idea of it better than I can actually do it.

Dang, where did you get that Beren's quote? I'll have to get the book that has that quote. That is spot on!

As for temperments, you should probably forget about what you thought the ancient temperment stuff meant. When people talk about temperments in terms of type theory, they are thinking of something very different. By now they are different ideas (so there's no house of cards for your (trickster?) Ti to knock down. I'm not trying to agressively type you, but can you relate to that? That's how I sometimes use Ti in a tricky way- if I don't like an idea I often try to find the right string to pull to make it collapse, in a very agressive and intentional way.) I know that's what choleric is supposed to mean, that's how Rudolph Stiener followers use it.. so what.

So how do you think NFs would act, in terms of the 'ancient' temperment stuff? (yes, this is a trap).


I am not saying anything about Ti or Te and logical connections with my anecdote, I was just wondering if that ever matched your experience.

Yes, the smaller the parts, the more INNaccuracy you will get. For instance, there's those supply and demand curves, but that's an artificial situation. In real markets, there's a zero profit tendency.

Those 'facets' are untrue anyway. And it's not like they naturally extrapolate from the theory in any way. (really, they don't)(by the theory I MEAN the cognitive processes)

 

[Eric B]

Dang, where did you get that Beren's quote? I'll have to get the book that has that quote. That is spot on!

Understanding Yourself and Others, An Introduction to the Personality Type Code. ENFP (and ESFP) profiles, side bar for shadow functions.
Right after the discusssion of me being ENFP, I wanted to learn more about the congnitive fynamics, and began ordering the Berens books (and also the one on Temperament, Interaction Style, and Cognitive Processes, and also Hartzler's and finally Nardi's book. All of that helped me understand the functions better, and more recently led me to question whether I really prefer Te over Ti.

As for temperments, you should probably forget about what you thought the ancient temperment stuff meant. When people talk about temperments in terms of type theory, they are thinking of something very different. By now they are different ideas (so there's no house of cards for your (trickster?) Ti to knock down. I'm not trying to agressively type you, but can you relate to that? That's how I sometimes use Ti in a tricky way- if I don't like an idea I often try to find the right string to pull to make it collapse, in a very agressive and intentional way.) I know that's what choleric is supposed to mean, that's how Rudolph Stiener followers use it.. so what.

So how do you think NFs would act, in terms of the 'ancient' temperment stuff? (yes, this is a trap).

I also followed the history of temperament theory. The four temperaments, originally believed to stem from the influence of body fluids ("humors"), and later realized were not, were originally measured in terms of a person's "response-time delay" and "response-time sustain". Long delay became introversion, and short delay became extraversion. Sustain comes down to us as Agreeableness, (and Informing-Directing) and can also be Eysenck's Neuroticism. This tells us how much a person holds on to negative emotions, and thus, how serious or "responsive" they are to others.

Kant is the one who first introduced perception as a temperament factor. He called this recognition of Beauty or the Sublime. Where the older model paired Sanguine and Choleric as extroverts, Melancholic and Phlegmatic as introverts; Sanguine and Phlegmatic as short sustain, and Choleric and Melancholic as long sustain. So here, we had our original temperament matrix. Perception paired Sanguine and Melancholic as high "Beauty" (e.g. Sensory or concrete) and Choleric and Phlegmatic as low Beauty. Those "pairs" had formerly been diametrically opposite.

This is where the rift between what you're calling "ancient" and "modern" (i.e. Keirseyan) temperament theory began. Kretschmer apparently picked this up, and came up with all new names and scales. Keirsey then used this model, and named them first after Greek gods, and then Plato's "four types of men" (the current names. And then Berens renamed them yet again). He mapped them to the MBTI groups that seemed to fit the descriptions. Yet now, we have Berens, who introduces another "four type" model also resembling the ancient temperaments. And this one uses the original extraversion and responsiveness (informing/directing) as its factors. The result, is that each of the 16 types shares one "Interaction Style", with one of Keirsey's "temperaments".

So what it seems is that there are in fact two versions of the "four temperaments", and both come to play in defining the types.

Now to pick up on other versions of temperament theory, you had many other systems using extraversion and responsiveness, such as Adler, Fromm, Marston (DiSC), Social Styles, etc. Berens compares several of these to her Interaction Styles model. Tim LaHaye repopularizes the original four temperaments and introduces 12 "blends" of them (SanMel, etc). These also result in 16 total combinations, though he does not seem to connect them to MBTI. (People now associate the original temperaments with Steiner, but he's 100 years ago, yet LaHaye is the one who seems to have brought them back for this generation. In the middle of that century, you had Eysenck, who used them with his new Neuroticism scale replacing responsiveness/(agreeableness). Both scales later become part of the Five Factor Model).
FIRO-B used Expressed and Wanted scales in three areas (Inclusion, Control and Affection), to measure learned behavior, and not type. Yet another Christian theorist, Richard Arno, maps the ancient temperments to the system, and in the process discovers that the Phlegmatic is actually moderate in both scales, and the low E/high R range consititutes a fifth temperament. He calls it "Supine", because it is servant-like; liking people, but being shy. In the area of social skills, it may partly explain the apparent "introverted extraversion" of some people in E-NP types. Othwerwise, it probably fits in with the Phlegmatic in INP and ISF types. Other E/R-like matrices using moderate scores and a fifth type are Blake-Mouton, Jay Hall and TKI.

So it is not "ancient" theory so much I am discussing. There seems to be one primary temperament theory, thought it has been updated in many ways, both in the names used, and its factors, and has split into two models, both cross-mapped to the 16 types of the MBTI. One uses expressiveness and responsiveness, and the other uses perception. This ends up measuring two different areas of our whole personality profile.

What it looks like to me, is that the Interaction Styles correspond to the temperaments in the area of social interaction, and the Keirsey "conative" temperaments are leadership and responsibilities. (Two of the three areas covered by the FIRO system, basically, and also loosely matching LaHaye's blends). So they seem like two totally different "temperament" theories, one ancient and one modern, but the "ancient" one has been reborn in MBTI circles as the Interaction Styles.
When you think of temperament, you basically think of social skills anyway. Yet the conative model is dealing with another area; one of "action", or leadership. That's why they seem so different. They're covering different aspects of the temperaments, and people are a blend of a social style and a leadership style, corresponding to the 16 types.

So where NF would fit in that. It seems to be either a Phlegmatic or Supine in Control. The Supine would have more energy than the Phlegmatic, and does react if his [unspoken] needs for affirmation aren't met. So this could be the so-called "hyperesthetic" behavior of Kretschmer's character style. Keirsey linked the NF with "hyperesthetic" and NT with "anasthetic". The hyperesthetic is described as having "tender" sensibility, while the anasthetic has "active coldness, passive insensitivity, tenacity, stubborn willfulness", etc. Kant, however, had made both the Choleric and Phlegmatic "cold-blooded", but they were both "cold" in different ways. The Phlegmatic was "cold" in being sluggish (including emotionally), while the Choleric was "cold" in having specifically a lack of feeling. Keirsey linked the NT's lack of feeling with Phlegmatic, and the NF's starting out more peaceful, but then becoming exciteable as "Choleric".
That's one thing that points to the temperament + interaction styles model as being two separate "areas" of the same four temperaments. What we are calling "temperament" (the "conative" model) is not about surface social skills (that's basically what the Interaction Styles are), but about "action" or leadership skills, so you don't look for necessarily the same surface behaviors (such as "coolness" or "exciteability") in naming the temperaments.

There is also a moderate hybrid called Supine Phlegmatic, who has elements of both temperaments. The Phegmatic is diplomatic like the NF's skills set, (The NT was "logistical") and the Supine has a need for appreciation of his worth, like the NF's core needs of meaning and significance. The NT's need of mastery and competence is clearly the Choleric in Control.
The most "choleric" are the NTJ's. In the NTP's, it is tempered by the "informing" interaction styles. The ENFJ is part Choleric because it is "In Charge". If NF were also Choleric, it would be a pure Choleric, but it is not, and rather the ENTJ "Fieldmarshall" is. The INFP certainly is not Choleric either. They may have angry reactions after awhile, but then every type does in one way or another. The INFP is slow with it, while the Choleric is famous for having a quick temper.

With you, the Ti you mentioned is a shadowy thing, but with me, it is more prominent, even though you may not see it here that much.

Yes, the smaller the parts, the more INNaccuracy you will get. For instance, there's those supply and demand curves, but that's an artificial situation. In real markets, there's a zero profit tendency.

Those 'facets' are untrue anyway. And it's not like they naturally extrapolate from the theory in any way. (really, they don't)(by the theory I MEAN the cognitive processes)

Yeah, well, just like them looking for smaller "fundamental" particles, more questions and apparent problems will come up in the theory. But still, the five subscales do seem to help by identifying where we do not fit a pattern.

 

[Xander]

Eric,

Firstly don't believe them... clever ENFPs have an NT (or two) helping them out!!!
It's true.


*waits patiently for explosion in the distance*


Oh and I think your type becomes more clear, INFP does fit well. Plus understanding NTs and "getting on with them" is more about honesty and being able to not take things personally more so than any other trait. See although I berrate Dom (well he is an ENFP and I've propped up his mental capacity for years... [damn it, still nothing]) but when engaged in converation I can usually point out flaws, mistakes and such till the cows come home and only after a couple of hours does he grow tired and start to bite (see they're all wussies in the end... *taps foot impatiently*). In fact, in direct relation to INFP, I have an INFP friend who comes over once each week. He used to bring over his latest ideas on a new setting for a game and I'd go through it with him and we'd discuss ideas. To start with he'd object to criticism but now he's totally comfortable with it, he uses my NT approach to counter balance his NFness.

Anyhow...much waffling = NF doesn't necessarily oppose NT. (Esp ENFJ and ENTJ!!!)

Also you have a certainty I'd associate with the INFP shadow (though that could be more background than personality wise).

Sorry to cut short but gotta run...

 

[Gabe]

Eric,

Firstly don't believe them... clever ENFPs have an NT (or two) helping them out!!!
It's true.


*waits patiently for explosion in the distance*


Oh and I think your type becomes more clear, INFP does fit well. Plus understanding NTs and "getting on with them" is more about honesty and being able to not take things personally more so than any other trait. See although I berrate Dom (well he is an ENFP and I've propped up his mental capacity for years... [damn it, still nothing]) but when engaged in converation I can usually point out flaws, mistakes and such till the cows come home and only after a couple of hours does he grow tired and start to bite (see they're all wussies in the end... *taps foot impatiently*). In fact, in direct relation to INFP, I have an INFP friend who comes over once each week. He used to bring over his latest ideas on a new setting for a game and I'd go through it with him and we'd discuss ideas. To start with he'd object to criticism but now he's totally comfortable with it, he uses my NT approach to counter balance his NFness.

Anyhow...much waffling = NF doesn't necessarily oppose NT. (Esp ENFJ and ENTJ!!!)

Also you have a certainty I'd associate with the INFP shadow (though that could be more background than personality wise).

Sorry to cut short but gotta run...

*explosion in the distance* happy now?

I have had many learning-stuff friendships with NTs, but if any of them were to be so arrogant as to think that they were 'propping up my intelligence', they would not be a friend any more.

You are somewhat right about one thing: ENFPS often need help with thinking when they're young. So, in my case, I needed good math teachers to be good at math.

I also remember one time I was playing 'speed chess' (no strategy) with an ENFP friend (who by the way, was class salutatorian at the prep school I went to, and is very 'clever'). Well, the nerds moved in on us, and split up and took over the game (telling both of us which moves to make), and totally ruining it for me.

So what though. One of those nerds was an arrogant jerk, and I never learned anything from him. In fact, if I don't like someone, I probably won't trust what they say anyway. When I've gotten in political arguements with theorists, I usually spend time looking up the 'facts' they've cited and finding them to be misrepresented or untrue.

Anyway, ENFPs are already innately clever through extraverted intuition. Personally, my interest is in meteorology, and I've spent 8 years teaching myself meteorology concepts and weather forecasting strategies. And although I always look foward to the chance to ask a professor something about the weather, this is something that I've done on my own, and I have learned most of the stuff completely on my own. ENFPs already have plenty of mental capacity.

And with type theory, a CATYLIST helped my with my type, and I learned almost all of the material on my own as a hobby interest. This is acually relelvent to what you wrote- the one frustration about type theory was for a while that I had nobody to talk about it with. So I looked around some internet forums, but the conversations were usually stupid or uninteresting. Frankly, I sometimes get bored with this group because people like you don't know nearly as much about psychological type as I have learned. You probably haven't read nearly the amount of material that I have, and yet you probably consider yourself some kind of expert. For crying out loud, you're even willing to throw around some vage, nonsense term like "NF-ness", and you probably think it sounds smart, when really it sounds very dumb.

I suppose you can stop tapping your foot impatiently now. Dom (adressing dom): does it bother you that xander would write this kind of pompous, patronizing crap about you. You also sound a lot smarter than xander, and you're much more on target, and ironically, despite what xander claims, your posts are much better thought-out than his.

 

[autumn]

Whoa! I've been kinda busy for a few days, and am now back. It's very interesting seeing all the branches of conversation this discussion has led to, but I am still wondering about what I asked about in the first post, namely that I have taken the KTS twice over the span of maybe eight years, and it has reliably typed me ENFP each time. The description seems to fit the best out of all sixteen, particularly with regard to when I was younger. Why then has pretty much every other indicator given an INFP result (with the exception of the actual MBTI, which I have never had the opportunity to take)?

Anyone have an idea?

autumn

 

[Gabe]

Understanding Yourself and Others, An Introduction to the Personality Type Code. ENFP (and ESFP) profiles, side bar for shadow functions.
Right after the discusssion of me being ENFP, I wanted to learn more about the congnitive fynamics, and began ordering the Berens books (and also the one on Temperament, Interaction Style, and Cognitive Processes, and also Hartzler's and finally Nardi's book. All of that helped me understand the functions better, and more recently led me to question whether I really prefer Te over Ti.
I also followed the history of temperament theory. The four temperaments, originally believed to stem from the influence of body fluids ("humors"), and later realized were not, were originally measured in terms of a person's "response-time delay" and "response-time sustain". Long delay became introversion, and short delay became extraversion. Sustain comes down to us as Agreeableness, (and Informing-Directing) and can also be Eysenck's Neuroticism. This tells us how much a person holds on to negative emotions, and thus, how serious or "responsive" they are to others.

Kant is the one who first introduced perception as a temperament factor. He called this recognition of Beauty or the Sublime. Where the older model paired Sanguine and Choleric as extroverts, Melancholic and Phlegmatic as introverts; Sanguine and Phlegmatic as short sustain, and Choleric and Melancholic as long sustain. So here, we had our original temperament matrix. Perception paired Sanguine and Melancholic as high "Beauty" (e.g. Sensory or concrete) and Choleric and Phlegmatic as low Beauty. Those "pairs" had formerly been diametrically opposite.

This is where the rift between what you're calling "ancient" and "modern" (i.e. Keirseyan) temperament theory began. Kretschmer apparently picked this up, and came up with all new names and scales. Keirsey then used this model, and named them first after Greek gods, and then Plato's "four types of men" (the current names. And then Berens renamed them yet again). He mapped them to the MBTI groups that seemed to fit the descriptions. Yet now, we have Berens, who introduces another "four type" model also resembling the ancient temperaments. And this one uses the original extraversion and responsiveness (informing/directing) as its factors. The result, is that each of the 16 types shares one "Interaction Style", with one of Keirsey's "temperaments".

So what it seems is that there are in fact two versions of the "four temperaments", and both come to play in defining the types.

Now to pick up on other versions of temperament theory, you had many other systems using extraversion and responsiveness, such as Adler, Fromm, Marston (DiSC), Social Styles, etc. Berens compares several of these to her Interaction Styles model. Tim LaHaye repopularizes the original four temperaments and introduces 12 "blends" of them (SanMel, etc). These also result in 16 total combinations, though he does not seem to connect them to MBTI. (People now associate the original temperaments with Steiner, but he's 100 years ago, yet LaHaye is the one who seems to have brought them back for this generation. In the middle of that century, you had Eysenck, who used them with his new Neuroticism scale replacing responsiveness/(agreeableness). Both scales later become part of the Five Factor Model).
FIRO-B used Expressed and Wanted scales in three areas (Inclusion, Control and Affection), to measure learned behavior, and not type. Yet another Christian theorist, Richard Arno, maps the ancient temperments to the system, and in the process discovers that the Phlegmatic is actually moderate in both scales, and the low E/high R range consititutes a fifth temperament. He calls it "Supine", because it is servant-like; liking people, but being shy. In the area of social skills, it may partly explain the apparent "introverted extraversion" of some people in E-NP types. Othwerwise, it probably fits in with the Phlegmatic in INP and ISF types. Other E/R-like matrices using moderate scores and a fifth type are Blake-Mouton, Jay Hall and TKI.

So it is not "ancient" theory so much I am discussing. There seems to be one primary temperament theory, thought it has been updated in many ways, both in the names used, and its factors, and has split into two models, both cross-mapped to the 16 types of the MBTI. One uses expressiveness and responsiveness, and the other uses perception. This ends up measuring two different areas of our whole personality profile.

What it looks like to me, is that the Interaction Styles correspond to the temperaments in the area of social interaction, and the Keirsey "conative" temperaments are leadership and responsibilities. (Two of the three areas covered by the FIRO system, basically, and also loosely matching LaHaye's blends). So they seem like two totally different "temperament" theories, one ancient and one modern, but the "ancient" one has been reborn in MBTI circles as the Interaction Styles.
When you think of tempermanent, you basically think of social skills anyway. Yet the conative model is dealing with another area; one of "action", or leadership. That's why they seem so different. They're covering different aspects of the temperaments, and people are a blend of a social style and a leadership style, corresponding to the 16 types.

So where NF would fit in that. It seems to be either a Phlegmatic or Supine in Control. The Supine would have more energy than the Phlegmatic, and does react if his [unspoken] needs for affirmation aren't met. So this could be the so-called "hyperesthetic" behavior of Kretschmer's character style. Keirsey linked the NF with "hyperesthetic" and NT with "anasthetic". The hyperesthetic is described as having "tender" sensibility, while the anasthetic has "active coldness, passive insiensitivity, tenacity, stubborn willfulness, etc. Kant, however, had made both the Choleric and Phlegmatic "cold-blooded", but they were both "cold" in different ways. The Phlegmatic was "cold" in being sluggish, while the Choleric was "cold" in having a lack of feeling. Keirsey linked the NT's lack of feeling with Choleric, and the NF's starting out more peaceful, but then becoming exciteable as "choleric".
That's one thing that points to the temperament + interaction styles model as being two separate "areas" of the same four temperaments. What we are calling "temperament" (the "conative" model) is not about surface social skills (that's basically what the Interaction Styles are), but about "action" or leadership skills, so you don't look for necessarily the same surface behaviors (such as "coolness" or "exciteability") in naming the temperaments.

There is also a moderate hybrid called Supine Phlegmatic, who has elements of both temperaments. The Phegmatic is diplomatic like the NF's skills set, (The NT was "logistical") and the Supine has a need for appreciation of his worth, like the NF's core needs of meaning and significance. The NT's need of mastery and competence is clearly the Choleric in Control.
The most "choleric" are the NTJ's. In the NTP's, it is tempered by the "informing" interaction styles. The ENFJ is part Choleric because it is "In Charge". If NF were also Choleric, it would be a pure Choleric, but it is not, and rather the ENTJ "Fieldmarshall" is. The INFP certainly is not Choleric either. They may have angry reactions after awhile, but then every type does in one way or another. The INFP is slow with it, while the Choleric is famous for having a quick temper.

With you, the Ti you mentioned is a shadowy thing, but with me, it is more prominent, even though you may not see it here that much.

Yeah, well, just like them looking for smaller "fundamental" particles, more questions and apparent problems will come up in the theory. But still, the five subscales do seem to help by identifying where we do not fit a pattern.

if they were all based on temperment (or whatever you think the 'fundamental particle' is), then the theories would fit much nicer. However, they don't. Just because models look similar-ish (ish-ish-ish) doesn't mean they're going to be relevant to each other, or fit in such a predictably symmetric way. That's almost new age thinking. I mean, your body is made up of 75% water right? So shouldn't water respond to written messages and music? Y'know, water and the human body are *related*.

You are also seriously oversimplifying stuff. There are directing and informing types in each temperment.

Temperments correlating with the 5-factor model? Well 1, there's 4 temperments and 5 factors, two, the 5 factors are on a scale of good to bad, and the temperments aren't (that's a huge mess right there. I'll take that alone as a sign that the theories won't fit)

Also 'mastery and competence' doesn't mean controlling a situation or even leadership. That doesn't logically extrapolate itself in any way

What I'm trying to say is that you are engaging in quite a bit of conceptual stretching.

And don't start falsifying type profiles to fit your theory. Psychological type stands well by itself. All INFPs have very quick tempers as kids, and they still do as adults no matter how emotionally contained they try to be (which is really just an unfortunate adaption to society).

"and the Supine has a need for appreciation of his worth, like the NF's core needs of meaning and significance"

This is the kind of stretch (way past the breaking point) I am talking about. I just read the definition of that. It's not a temperment. It's a one dimensional caricature. Temperment definitions have been changed to relate to psychological type, and if I were to describe the 4 temperments, I'd describe them in terms of psychological type. 'supine' has now relation to psychological type the way the new temperment descriptions do, and I can't even start on how little relation it has to reality. Heart of a servant? What is that? Some rediculous image that exists only in the minds of some old rich white guys.

And, if you are not already pissed off by my tone try to consider that you are still using tons of Te.

 

[Xander]

*explosion in the distance* happy now?

Well to be honest I thought it was more of a damp squib until I read on more. You have not been a disappointment

I have had many learning-stuff friendships with NTs, but if any of them were to be so arrogant as to think that they were 'propping up my intelligence', they would not be a friend any more.

Oh I'm sure that should Dom feel that I did think that he'd be the first with the axe to remove my head. The thing is that I reckon we've both propped each other up at points.. in between the "heated discussions"

You are somewhat right about one thing: ENFPS often need help with thinking when they're young. So, in my case, I needed good math teachers to be good at math.

I think that's true with any person.. possibly more so with an intuitive person so that their framework is correct. That's something I've found, an intuitive has a major problem if their framework is called into question. More so that a sensor who has one of their foundation facts disproven.

I also remember one time I was playing 'speed chess' (no strategy) with an ENFP friend (who by the way, was class salutatorian at the prep school I went to, and is very 'clever'). Well, the nerds moved in on us, and split up and took over the game (telling both of us which moves to make), and totally ruining it for me.

Chess was ruined for me early on... like before I was born. I always found all those rules and stuff really frustrating. It's one of those things I declared 'stupid' and never returned to it.

So what though. One of those nerds was an arrogant jerk, and I never learned anything from him. In fact, if I don't like someone, I probably won't trust what they say anyway. When I've gotten in political arguements with theorists, I usually spend time looking up the 'facts' they've cited and finding them to be misrepresented or untrue.

Also true. All the ENFPs I know have to trust your ability in a certain area before you really get their full attention. Otherwise the advice or opinion gets filtered so much it's often hard to tell if they actually heard you or just supplanted the words with something different.

Anyway, ENFPs are already innately clever through extraverted intuition. Personally, my interest is in meteorology, and I've spent 8 years teaching myself meteorology concepts and weather forecasting strategies. And although I always look foward to the chance to ask a professor something about the weather, this is something that I've done on my own, and I have learned most of the stuff completely on my own. ENFPs already have plenty of mental capacity.

Type never does determine mental capability. The whole ENFP weather girl idea though does bring a smile to my lips. Too many 'presentable' types doing the job. It could do with being more zany.

And with type theory, a CATYLIST helped my with my type, and I learned almost all of the material on my own as a hobby interest. This is acually relelvent to what you wrote- the one frustration about type theory was for a while that I had nobody to talk about it with. So I looked around some internet forums, but the conversations were usually stupid or uninteresting. Frankly, I sometimes get bored with this group because people like you don't know nearly as much about psychological type as I have learned. You probably haven't read nearly the amount of material that I have, and yet you probably consider yourself some kind of expert. For crying out loud, you're even willing to throw around some vage, nonsense term like "NF-ness", and you probably think it sounds smart, when really it sounds very dumb.

Not to be an INTP an all but you still seem touchy. I was being tongue in cheek and rushed. Give a guy a break. Besides I'd be the first to tell you that I'm no expert. I've read a bit and done some typing but I'm no qualified psychiatrist! Besides this is all just opinion. Really I wasn't trying to lay down law or anything... just expressing my thoughts.

I suppose you can stop tapping your foot impatiently now. Dom (adressing dom): does it bother you that xander would write this kind of pompous, patronizing crap about you. You also sound a lot smarter than xander, and you're much more on target, and ironically, despite what xander claims, your posts are much better thought-out than his.

Oh he is a lot more intelligent at points than I can muster... quite a few points. Possibly that's partially why I keep him around. I mean a T like me certainly wouldn't associate with such random F types otherwise right?

(Just a little cue for you, I've known Dom since school and most of my nearest and dearest friends, partners and family are Fs. Just because I don't have any particular bias though doesn't mean I have to sound like it... where would be the fun in that? )