Am I an ENFP or an ENTP?

[Huntygox]

Hello! I'm trying to figure out my type, and was wondering if friends here could assist me. I'm unquestionably an ENxP - I'm very social, love interpersonal relationships, live in my head, and rely on improvisation and spontaneity over careful planning. I'm either an ENTP that's introspective, self-aware and emotionally intuitive or an ENFP that's reallllllllllly honed their extroverted thinking function. The tests used to score me as an ENTP, but now they're scoring me as an ENFP. Some of my personality traits:

- I love to debate, though I generally only argue about things I'm passionate about. To me, intellectual debate is an opportunity for me to express my principles and change the opinion of another party. (Bring them to my side, so to speak). If somebody infringes on my value system, I let them have it. I'm very adept at playing devil's advocate and seeing both sides of an issue, but I know when to drop the argument and focus on compromise instead. I do also enjoy the act of debate itself--I'm willing to change my opinions because I pride myself on intellectual diversity and intellectual independence. I can be incredibly rational and am very good at dissecting logical inconsistencies in arguments. Some people see this and perceive me as an analytical robot (my family especially). Poor logic and hypocrisy does genuinely bother me, and sometimes I need to be careful in hurting people when I argue. I try not to point out the hypocrisy of my friends, mostly because I value our relationship and am privy to their emotional sensitivities.

- I'm very self-aware and emotionally intuitive. Though I'm conventionally smart in an academic sense, I think people mistake my emotional intelligence and people skills with raw IQ or "smartness". I can read people phenomenally well--I don't mean this in a manipulative way. I know when people experience emotions, and I know why they're experiencing them. I'm very good at sizing up the emotional intentions and motives of other people. When I verbalize this to people, I freak people out because I'm almost always right.

- My empathy stems from a familiarity with emotional pain. I know what it's like to suffer. I score high on neuroticism and low on emotional stability on the Big 5. I'm a pretty anxious person, and I reason with my anxieties remarkably well. I know which anxious thoughts are irrational, and sometimes I impose this obsession with logic and rationality onto other people.

- Ironically, other people come to me for emotional support because they know I'm incredibly empathetic and warm. Having said that, I never actually open myself up to other people (which makes me think I'm an introverted feeler -- ENFP). A lot of the times I would rather withdraw and reflect on myself as a person. Me being Fi makes sense given that I'm very adamant about my principles. I strive to be a consistent person. However, I also really hate it when friend groups fight and am generally the one that tries to keep social harmony. I know that this is a pretty Fe trait. (I think, ironically, this maybe is because I strive to be a consistently nice, warm and empathetic person that helps others! My Fe tendencies are in alignment with my Fi self perception).

- One of my best friends is an INFJ. Her outward torrent of emotion can sometimes be overwhelming to me. However, I feel comfortable opening up to her. (Fi meets Fe?) Sometimes her emotion is also irritating in the sense that I interpret it as illogical. (But like I said, I have a bad habit of imposing logic onto other peoples emotions because reason and rationality helps me with my emotional turbulence).

- I fit both the personality stereotypes. Seriously--I see myself in both. This is a weird example, but some friends unequivocally see me as a cold and ambitious Slytherin that games the system. Other see me as a quirky, sensitive and empathetic Hufflepuff. (I don't actually super like Harry Potter, but you get the idea...)

So am I a weirdly empathetic and emotionally intellligent ENTP or an ENFP that has a strong tertiary function? I do have a lot of feelings, I just sort of bottle them up and deal with them internally... I lean towards ENFP but I'm curious to hear your thoughts!

Thanks friends!

Sorry that I just wrote an essay...

 

[highlander]

Welcome to the forum!

You sound like an ENTP to me given these quotes

- I love to debate, though I generally only argue about things I'm passionate about. To me, intellectual debate is an opportunity for me to express my principles and change the opinion of another party. (Bring them to my side, so to speak).

I can be incredibly rational and am very good at dissecting logical inconsistencies in arguments. Some people see this and perceive me as an analytical robot (my family especially). Poor logic and hypocrisy does genuinely bother me, and sometimes I need to be careful in hurting people when I argue. I try not to point out the hypocrisy of my friends, mostly because I value our relationship and am privy to their emotional sensitivities.

Sometimes her emotion is also irritating in the sense that I interpret it as illogical. (But like I said, I have a bad habit of imposing logic onto other peoples emotions because reason and rationality helps me with my emotional turbulence).

I do have a lot of feelings, I just sort of bottle them up and deal with them internally... I lean towards ENFP but I'm curious to hear your thoughts!

Also, with regards to the following, though I think Ne types have strong powers of observation, you could be an Enneagram 6.

I can read people phenomenally well--I don't mean this in a manipulative way. I know when people experience emotions, and I know why they're experiencing them. I'm very good at sizing up the emotional intentions and motives of other people. When I verbalize this to people, I freak people out because I'm almost always right.

- My empathy stems from a familiarity with emotional pain. I know what it's like to suffer. I score high on neuroticism and low on emotional stability on the Big 5. I'm a pretty anxious person, and I reason with my anxieties remarkably well. I know which anxious thoughts are irrational, and sometimes I impose this obsession with logic and rationality onto other people.

 

[Huntygox]

Hi! Thanks for the help - I appreciate it. I do actually identify with that Enneagram type! (Especially the counterphobic type). I know the tests lead to confirmation bias, but I've gotten a plethora of weird answers. I initially got 3w4, which indicates ENTP. Then I got 4w5, which usually indicates INFP. I am a very introverted extrovert, but I think lead way too much with extroverted intuition. (Though I could actually see myself being an INFP, as I can get some very emotional and visceral reactions to childhood memories--Introverted Sensing??)

For tritype, I got 458. This was fascinating, and I generally identified with the label. Insatiable curiously, scholarly, emotional astuteness, desire to see what makes people "tick", etc. I also read that they're the darkest which is funny/accurate/sad... lol.

I'm still actually leaning towards the ENFP idea. I posted on the ENFP reddit, and some other astute ENFP's helped me realize that my obsession with logic is actually just Extroverted Thinking. I generally impose logic outwardly to confirm my own internal beliefs. (Te to deal with my Fi). I'm very privy to my core values. I strive to be an authentic person that is congruous with my past and present. I look inwards when I make decision towards the future. I want to be a teacher because I've had inspirational teachers shape my very being, and I consistently introspect and analyze my own emotional motives and intentions. This is why I'm so good at reading people--I think it's because I apply my Fi and can see my own behavioral patterns and emotional intentions in other people. When I logically distance myself from psychological projection, I can understand people even better. My desire to understand human behavior isn't mechanical in the way I've seen ENTPs describe--it comes from a genuine and insatiable desire for human connection and compassion. I don't think I use Introverted Thinking as my secondary function, because the ENTPs I've read on these forums seem uhhhhh... kind of emotionally stunted and lack self-awareness? I'm way too introspective about my own feelings to use logic internally in the way xNTPs do.

My desire to maintain social harmony is generally me NOT expressing my internal principles. That's why it seems Fe--secretly I know I'm right. I just don't want to start a debate because I also pride myself on being very sympathetic. When my internal desire to be intellectually curious competes with my internal desire to be sympathetic and warm to everybody... well it kind of feels like I'm being torn apart.

When I argue, it's generally out of principle. I do strive to be an intellectually curious person, and it infuriates me when I'm not given the opportunity to have intellectual freedom. Like it actually stirs me with anger. But debate to me is less about finding an objective point for the sake of logic, and more of reaching a truth that can inspire somebody else or make genuine change in this world. The mere concept of learning and education fills me with passion. It seems some ENTPs argue without emotion or are disengaged with the ideas they present. Other ENFPs acknowledged this.

My theory is that my Extroverted Thinking function is just very honed, probably because of some serious life circumstances. But I actually think I'm an ENFP who has ironically developed an internal value system that stems from intellectual curiosity and lifelong learning. When somebody encroaches on this, I think I give people the "Te" bitchslap. I also don't mean this in a braggy way, but I think I'm just naturally inclined to grasp formal logic and sequential reasoning. Other people see my outwardly analytic behavior, and see me as a mechanical thinker type when I'm just sort of guarded about my emotions. I can talk about them fluidly and openly, but I often don't unless outright asked about my feelings/identity. When people come to me for advice, I try and fix the cause of their emotional instability. If somebody is sad, I try and diagnose the root of their melancholy. (I am very aware of what causes me emotional pain--I hate it when people tell me to "calm down" or that "it gets better" because that doesn't actually fix my emotional state). I don't just say "cheer up" to other people because that doesn't actually solve anything. I literally put myself in their shoes, and give them warm advice according to my own self-perception/what I would do in their situation. I think this is kind of the definition of Fi.

If I am an ENTP, I possess a bazaaaaaaaaaaaar emotionally reflective ability. Some of the ENTPs on this forum and on the ENTP reddit talk about humans as if they're machines. It kind of disturbs me actually.

I also stereotypically prefer the arts/humanities over science and math. In fact, I hate science and math because they're mechanical. I love history and theatre because they're cerebral but also very relevant to the human condition/making this world a happy, healthy place...



But hey, I'm intellectually curious and am open to you persuading me into being an ENTP.

Thank you for all of the advice though - I appreciate it!

 

[Hello Friends!]

Hi there [MENTION=28460]Huntygox[/MENTION] ,

Before I get started, you should know I can't help but throw in a joke every once in a while. This isn't meant to make light of your topic or anything of the sort, it's just another form of genuine expression. So bear with me.

I know the moment has already passed on this thread but I felt compelled to respond. Your self-description is so similar to me it's scary. I'm actually a long time lurker on this site and made an account just to respond to you (so feel honored ). I've spent a long time struggling with the same concept you're dealing with (negotiating the T/F aspects of the MBTI). I'm not as well versed as others in regards to the tertiary, auxiliary, etc. aspects of the MBTI, but I thought I'd just share with you some of the conclusions I've drawn on the matter in a more general way.

You should know my motives in responding here, too, so you can get some context on what I'm saying. First of all, as I'm sure you can relate, I love discourse on subjective topics (especially if they're about me) and you seem to be a quality discourse...r(?). Second of all, you might be the only other person I've had the chance to interact with that has dealt with this before (at least that has illustrated it as well as you have), so I just couldn't let the opportunity pass by. Third of all, I have a very good idea of what you're dealing with (empathy, or whatever), and the duality of it all can be overwhelming; I'd like to help, or just give some perspective, if nothing else.

First thing I'd like to say is that the MBTI is an extraordinarily simplistic tool (as are all personality tests). This world is covered in shades of grey, most of all humans, and this test pigeonholes people into black or white. However I understand that psychological and sociological tools aren't meant to be absolute, so everything has to be taken with a grain of salt and this test just makes an estimated guess. To its credit, it's remarkably accurate. But basically what I'm trying to say is that all people are both thinkers and feelers and that a healthy dose of skepticism is critical in psychology.

Disclaimer: I'm about to project myself onto you, but all I ever guaranteed was perspective (see "healthy dose of skepticism" above ^).

My results from the MBTI are consistently ENTP, but at the same time I always get full marks in the "compassion" subcategory and, like you, I am driven by empathy and the desire for meaningful human interaction in almost everything I do (including this rambling nonsense). It seems from reading your posts that your default mode is that of a thinker, or rather that you apply logic and reasoning to the information you receive as a way to process and draw conclusions from it. What frustrates me is the belief that this automatically excludes you from being empathetic or compassionate, as though the two are mutually exclusive (gimme a friggin break).However, I have seen some of the ENTP forums on here, and I agree, it can get disturbing. When I was younger I used to think very much in line with those ENTPs who view others in an emotionally detached sense, or rather as objects/obstacles to be manipulated, controlled, and/or overcome (in one way or another). Thankfully for me, I've grown up a bit and have come to some revelations on the matter that I believe are based on logic and reasoning.

As with all things, even the most stringent logical discussions are necessarily based on some token assumptions. If my assumptions don't coincide with yours, then I'd genuinely love to hear your explanation as to why and we'll start from square one .

Personally*, when I follow my own logic and rationale as far as I possibly can, or rather ever have, it has resulted in the conclusion that all people, like it or not, have emotions and feelings. These emotions are powerful and often have a significant impact on one's actions, to see them as insignificant, inconsequential, or "stupid" is objectively obstinate and limiting. To ignore other's emotions often results in one's own disadvantage and is the antithesis of reason. Emotions don't exist accidentally, biologically and practically speaking, emotions have very real applications and have been developed over millions of years of evolution. I don't want to get into those reasons now because I don't have a thorough enough knowledge to verbalize them and it would take...like...a long time.

IMO when you take logic to its threadbare 'epistemology', we almost necessarily arrive at existentialism. Or rather, nothing truly* matters and everything is meaningless (unless you'd prefer the theological approach; another matter entirely). Insert some cheeky Nietzsche quote here. To me, even though that may be technically true, it is an utterly impractical and cyclical philosophy. To accept it would mean I might as well commit suicide as soon as I possibly could. This is a difficult idea to illustrate, but what I'm essentially saying is that we must assume that something must have meaning, and speaking from a strictly logical mindset, nothing has meaning. A foundational assumption I make is that other people have inherent and self-sufficient meaning, and really, isn't that obvious?

Logic is a tool constructed by humans and is their sole domain. Humanity begets logic, and what defines humanity if not emotion? Using logic as a tool is very useful and ought to be done more often, but ultimately it's meaningless without emotion. You could say that logic is the means, and emotion is the ends.

Long story short, it is logical to feel empathy. Not recognizing and appreciating the emotions of others is actually a flaw in thinking. I know some of my later points were a little sloppy and unhinged, but the topics are very abstract and I would need to write several books to comprehensively flesh them out. I've left a lot unsaid because I am trying to make this as concise and synthesized as possible, but I am more than willing to discuss aforementioned and unmentioned topics in greater detail. I hope this post provides some modicum of insight into your dilemma!


P.S.
This whole rambling bit of word-salad was pretty much held at arms length for me, for the sake of (relative) clarity. But I actually feel very passionately about my position and love people (yes, "people"). I have committed my life to helping others; to me, it's the only worthwhile pursuit and way to give my life real meaning. I just don't want to come off as disingenuous.

 

[Forever]

[MENTION=30274]Hello Friends![/MENTION]

Cute name!

 

[Hello Friends!]

[MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION]

Looks like you have some experience around here. Any idea if I'm an ENTP or ENFP based on my post? I know I just got off my soap box about it, but I don't understand the functions well enough. I'd love someone else's opinions or insights who has a clue as to how the functions perform/interact with one another.

 

[Forever]

[MENTION=19719]Forever[/MENTION]

Looks like you have some experience around here. Any idea if I'm an ENTP or ENFP based on my post? I know I just got off my soap box about it, but I don't understand the functions well enough. I'd love someone else's opinions or insights who has a clue as to how the functions perform/interact with one another.

Based off your post, ENTP.

 

[Psyclepath]

I get an ExTP vibe from you. I observe Fe-Ti, though nothing that would conclusively make me consider you as an intuitive, so I wouldn't rule out ESTP.

If you like debates, I am sure we could debate - I'm not averse to a good debate myself. What sort of topics fascinate you?

 

[Hello Friends!]

I get an ExTP vibe from you. I observe Fe-Ti, though nothing that would conclusively make me consider you as an intuitive, so I wouldn't rule out ESTP.

If you like debates, I am sure we could debate - I'm not averse to a good debate myself. What sort of topics fascinate you?

Really?? I usually score strongest in N, but thanks for the heads up, I'll check it out.

I love debates so long as they aren't overly adversarial(I know it has to be a little), I don't necessarily want to change anyone's mind. Most people have a good reason to think what they think, or at least they believe that. It's just not worth it to me to offend someone in order to "win" an argument.

However, I just can't resist a good exchange of ideas
-international politics (or domestic, but that shit is meeesssy right now)
-philosophy (especially the state of nature and/or as it applies to society)
-law (why it exists, what it does, how it should behave, how it should be used, theories of application)
-government (what effect should it have on our lives, do humans belong in it, sovereignty of man)
-criminology (why people commit crimes, what crime is, what makes a criminal)
-sociology
-transhumanism (especially interesting to me right now)

If you take a stance on any of those, I'll probably be able to debate it even if I agree with you.

 

[Psyclepath]

I'll take you up on philosophy. I'd like you to start by choosing your aspect of philosophy. (I will probably have an idea of your type by the first post, but we'll soon see).

 

[Hello Friends!]

Forgot to mention theology too, so that's also on the table. I'll just go ahead and be predictable here. How's about some existentialism? Most of the philosophy I'm familiar with is social/political/legal, but as you can probably tell I'm fascinated by existentialism.

I'll take the initiative on it; I believe that the best (or most applicable) view on existentialism is to see it through the lens of humanism. Or, most existential "purists" would argue nihilism, in the "Waiting for Godot" sense. I would argue that existentialism *most* logically leads to humanism.

 

[Psyclepath]

Forgot to mention theology too, so that's also on the table. I'll just go ahead and be predictable here. How's about some existentialism? Most of the philosophy I'm familiar with is social/political/legal, but as you can probably tell I'm fascinated by existentialism.

I'll take the initiative on it; I believe that the best (or most applicable) view on existentialism is to see it through the lens of humanism. Or, most existential "purists" would argue nihilism, in the "Waiting for Godot" sense. I would argue that existentialism *most* logically leads to humanism.

Waiting for Godot was a strange play, to say the least. I couldn't get on with it; I didn't get what it was meant to be about, I thought it to be rather pretentious. I confess I didn't read it properly, though.

Existentialism is extremely important though, for to proclaim that human minds are not unique is an absurdity. This has been highlighted by the existence of even the most basic, primitive forms of typology.

 

[Hello Friends!]

Waiting for Godot was a strange play, to say the least. I couldn't get on with it; I didn't get what it was meant to be about, I thought it to be rather pretentious. I confess I didn't read it properly, though.


Definitely agree about Godot. This is just opinion but I think it was meant to make the audience feel the way it made you feel. No meaning, no direction, no reason for anything, waiting for something that is never going to come (possibly God?). Like my first post says, it basically takes logic and the question "why?" to the conclusion that there is no meaning, at all, anywhere. I honestly think this is just a complicated way to cop-out of finding meaning for one's own life and/or the easy way to justify a supposedly meaningless life. Just because humans haven't found our ultimate 'purpose' for existence doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or even ought to exist as the traditional understanding of "purpose" goes. Maybe existence is its own reason; for us to enjoy and experience as much as possible *is* the ends. And, honestly, can't life be great sometimes? Sometimes, do you experience something that makes you forget all the bad and make The non-negotiable conclusion that Godot makes is just so close minded, self pitying, indulgent, and, like you said, pretentious. Ultimately I think that philosophies at least have to have a semblance of practical application to life. According to Godot, the act of writing, publishing, and selling that very play is in itself hypocritical.

Here's a quote from the wikipedia article on the Theater of the Absurd, which is the sub-genre Godot falls under.

"...focused largely on the idea of existentialism and expressed what happens when human existence has no meaning or purpose and therefore all communication breaks down, in fact alerting their audiences to pursue the opposite. Logical construction and argument gives way to irrational and illogical speech and to its ultimate conclusion, silence." Theatre of the Absurd - Wikipedia


Existentialism is extremely important though, for to proclaim that human minds are not unique is an absurdity. This has been highlighted by the existence of even the most basic, primitive forms of typology.

Can you elaborate a bit on this? Does existentialism support or dispute that human minds aren't unique? How?

I think we may just agree too completely on this to debate, also, I don't understand this philosophy well enough to play devil's advocate against you. I like the way you think though . How about epistemology? Another important philosophy I enjoy. Where do you think *true* knowledge originates? What is the foundation that we build everything we "know" upon?

 

[Hello Friends!]

Whoops, still getting the hang of this site, I accidentally quoted what I wrote. My bad.