[ENTP] ENTP personality type descritpion

[Shimmy]

I'm sorry mate, I really did like the OP and was interested (it's very well written), but it just was too long to keep my attention.

 

[Valuable_Money]

I'm sorry mate, I really did like the OP and was interested (it's very well written), but it just was too long to keep my attention.

Whats the point of making a post just to say a post was too long?

Its your own damn fault, this is solitarywalker, he cant order breakfast without a wall of text and I for one enjoy them.

 

[ObliviousExistence]

very interesting, thanks for posting. Where did you gather this information from?

 

[SolitaryWalker]

very interesting, thanks for posting. Where did you gather this information from?

Careful readings of the Psychological Types and my own philosophical discoveries on the subject. More so the latter than the former.

 

[thisGuy]

you've put things far more succinctly that i would have been able to...well done

id say posts like these are a must read for most entps who are new to the jungian theory. most go to the sites and read those descriptions that only serve to fuel the ego...pretty soon these entps begin identifying with the archetype entp and its downhill from that point on till the Ti kicks

 

[Katsuni]

Found some parts to be a bit redundant at times, and a few cases of wording used which was unnecessary when simpler terminology would've been actually more accurate (big words for the sake of big words is bad; use them to specify particular meanings which simpler terms aren't specialized for :O ), but overall quite well done for an in depth analysis.

Found it lacking in a few areas, however, but honestly it was quite long as it was, and I'm not sure people could've maintained attention spans long enough to finish it if yeu went through the same depth of rationalization to all aspects of life XD

Honestly the only reason I got through it is because it said "ENTP PROFILE ZOMG" so I hads to read through it. Because it was about me. Whot can I say? My ego rivals steeve jobs.

Regardless though, it's quite well thought out, though it sounds very much so like something intended for a school project... too much fluttering about to compare other types to be something of a focused research topic, but, rather, the feeling of being left in to hint at knowledge of other areas, instead of directly correlating to the matter at hand.

Still a good read though =3

 

[oneoutside]

Solitary Walker, I've read a few of your profiles posted at personalitycafe. They're so helpful! But require pretty intense concentration.

This gave me a much clearer understanding of how Fe works for an ENTP. That definitely makes sense. The only thing I'm still unclear on at this point is Si .. I want to learn to observe when it manifests itself in my life. Sometimes when I'm emotionally stressed I do experience uncontrolled nostalgic/sensory related impulses. And it's a really strange feeling. Perhaps that's Si. The fact that I can't really put my finger on it supports the notion that it's an inferior function.

 

[mgoodb_tsamaritani]

I tried to post this on ENTP.org, did not get a confirmation email for my registration.

Someone put a word in for me please.

Thank you SolitaryWalker. I passed along the final revision of your profile to ENTP.org last August. I created a short preface in another thread of entp.org to explain why I was relaying your work to the site because I registered with a one and done username--likewise, I've done the same here as a proper notification. Because the entp site has been modified since last August the link to that preface I inserted into the heading of your profile under the pseudonym "Kathy" is broken.

But your profile and the thread I created to house it in its unedited form, exactly as it appears in this thread, is available just as I left it and can be easily found by using the link below. Thank you for engaging this subject with such diligence; though it may test the collective attention span of its intended audience-it tested mine-I believe your insight into the inner workings of the type are invaluable. Best Wishes!

Entp profile - ENTP.org

you've put things far more succinctly that i would have been able to...well done

id say posts like these are a must read for most entps who are new to the jungian theory. most go to the sites and read those descriptions that only serve to fuel the ego...pretty soon these entps begin identifying with the archetype entp and its downhill from that point on till the Ti kicks

Exactly. Well-said.

 

[simulatedworld]

These parts seem especially accurate:

Yet the ENP will need to have the notion of the current situation fixated, and then based on that will attempt to see what this particular entity could be like. Or what it would seem like from other perspectives. Such a type would see horizontally, or forego selecting a starting point, but leap at the scenario simultaneously.

They prefer to devote all of their being to the current task, and this is never a conscious choice, but this happens as a necessary entailment of their interaction with the outer world. It is their unconscious perception that foments them to interact with the world in such a fashion, not the conscious secondary Introverted Judgment. When Extroverted Intuition becomes preponderous over introverted judgment, the ENTP will face similar maladies unhealthy ESPs tend to be afflicted with—recklessness.

And especially this...which is something I wish I could do better:

However, ENTPs who have developed their introverted judgment and have come in tune with the higher purpose will liberate themselves from the tyranny of the external agenda and only then will be able to come to terms with their inner being and view themselves as true individuals as opposed to mere agents of the network they are environed in. There they will be able to see a sharp distinction between the things they do to humor their outer environment and what is a true a manifestation of their inner being. There they will cease trying to be one of their personas that they’ve put on display for the sake of meeting a particular end of the outer world, but will then see personas as either irrelevant to who they are or merely means to the end of attunement with their inner being.

I have a couple of questions, though...in this quote...

However, one important phenomenon that we should take note of is that all of our intuitive perceptions were first inspired by external phenomena. Therefore Briggs’ approach to the Judging/Perceiving dichotomy has much merit in this respect. Namely that she regards Judging types as those approaching the external world with a judging function and intuitive types approaching the external world with an intuitive function.

...you seem to acknowledge that all information regarding cognitive tendencies of others must have originally come from some external behavioral observation...but doesn't most behavioral typology degrade quickly into useless folk typology?

I suppose I'm still confused on what exactly constitutes folk typology. You quote Lenore Thomson here, is she not a folk typologist? Much of her book is devoted to pointing out everyday behaviors that are common in each type--you do this several times in your own piece here:

As for instance, it is very common for a Judger to say that they could not imagine the concept of yellow without the word yellow, yet very uncommon for a dominant Extroverted perceiver to make the same claim.

The EP, unlike the IJ, must always be adapting to the new environment, therefore he easily becomes restless after novelty has worn off.

and so on. So we can use cognitive tendencies to infer behaviors that are common for each type? You've devoted a significant portion of this profile to describing behavioral tendencies, so knowing about the relevant cognitive tendencies can lead us to creating a profile of behavioral tendencies common for people with those cognitive tendencies, right?

So...at what point in doing this do we steer into folk typology? Is the problem in using everyday behaviors to infer cognitive tendencies instead of the other way around?

If we know which cognitive tendencies tend to lead to which behaviors, once we've observed some behaviors in a person, can't we make reasonably educated guesses about which cognitive tendencies are the cause (even if we don't have direct information from that person describing his own cognitive tendencies)?

Is folk typology the practice of using everyday non-cognitive behaviors to infer cognitive tendencies? If so, once we become familiar with the profiles of each type and the common behaviors those cognitive tendencies will tend to produce, why can't we go the other way and use those common behaviors to make inductive guesses at someone's psychological type? Admittedly this would be guesswork and would not yield precise accuracy, but does that really make it (almost) entirely worthless?

Guessing about cognitive tendencies based on everyday behaviors would seem to be something the extroverted perceiver has a talent for. While he won't always be right in these guesses and will not have direct access to information on a person's cognitive tendencies from which to infer behavioral patterns (the way an introverted judger would prefer), he may guess correctly more often than you might expect.

 

[fill]

I finally got to sit down and read this through - I'm 98% sure I'm ENTP. I'd love to read other profiles that don't describe me so well in the same depth. Great job.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

Solitary Walker, I've read a few of your profiles posted at personalitycafe. They're so helpful! But require pretty intense concentration. .

Thank you for taking the time to read it with care, as I realize its more of a challenge than a typical 'personality' profile we may come across on the web. I appreciate the fact that my work is making an impact outside of this community.

The only thing I'm still unclear on at this point is Si ...

In order to give you the most precise answer possible, we'd need to clearly define Si. Introverted Sensing is a tendency to have one's senses stimulated by perceptions within the inner content of consciousness rather than an external object.

I want to learn to observe when it manifests itself in my life....

On the basis of the definition of this function above, I cannot link its activity with any particular behavior in which it necessarily manifests. A function never operates in isolation, as it is intimately intertwined with other cognitive faculties; hence any claim that maintains that a certain behavior is a manifestation of Si is mistaken.

What I can indeed tell you about is how Si operates in conjunction with other cognitive faculties of the Ne-Ti temperament. Most naturally it is used as a cognitive storage for impressions and instinctual tendencies that are typically subordinated to the more influential cognitive functions. For instance, Si is highly likely to create distorted impressions that conform to the notions propounded by Ne and Ti. For example, for this type, it is quite natural to pay close attention to what is easily perceived by imagination (Ne) and in what structure is easily perceived (Ti). Thus, when an ENTP is attracted to a certain notion favored by Ne and Ti, Si often concocts impressions and distorted perceptions that support the notion that the person of this type is attracted to.

Inferior Si prompts a natural tendency that is altogether different from that of inferior Se. It often aids a person in creating perceptions that are desired by his or her unconscious rather than what was inspired by an observation. For that reason, one may argue, the inferior sensing of the ENP type is likely to be more prone to distort impressions than the inferior sensing of an INJ type.

Please take a careful note of the following; the above description merely describes a natural tendency and not a behavior that all ENTPs must engage in. In other words, this is a cognitive behavior that simply arises the most naturally in this type and may be superseded by other cognitive tendencies that any ENTP person may have learned as a result of nurture or a conscious effort to act in a way that's different from his natural manner of action.

I suspect that I did not give you the kind of an answer that you were hoping to receive as I do not see typology as a study of behaviors and any behavioristic conception of this discipline engenders irresolvable contradictions. I've commented on the matter in greater detail here.

http://www.typologycentral.com/foru.../23728-typology-philosophical-discipline.html

Cognitive tendencies is the best we have to work with. Although it is true that the way a person thinks often greatly influences how he behaves, however, many other influences also have a say in what he does. Thus, our chances of drawing an accurate correspondence between a certain cognitive faculty and a particular behavior 70, 80 or 90 percent of the time are very slim. For that reason, I recommend that we refrain from doing so altogether.

Sometimes when I'm emotionally stressed I do experience uncontrolled nostalgic/sensory related impulses. And it's a really strange feeling. Perhaps that's Si. The fact that I can't really put my finger on it supports the notion that it's an inferior function.

I would be cautious to attribute typological connotations to your behavior. It is quite natural for anyone to become nostalgic and experience difficulty controlling oneself at a time of stress. Si generates impressions well and easily triggers memories connected to a person's past, however, it is a mistake to attribute any activity of recollection of personal memories to Si. As a general rule, however, our inferior function tends to be in the least affinity with our natural tendencies. It is plausible that someone with an ENP temperament would be more inclined to exercise even poorer use of that function at a time of stress, and this often results in a mind-state you describe, however, there are many other reasons why any person would be having such an experience.

In other words, the behavior you describe can be induced by a poorly controlled inferior Si, yet I would not go ahead and say that such behaviors constitute the very definition of this cognitive function.

Thank you SolitaryWalker. I passed along the final revision of your profile to ENTP.org last August. I created a short preface in another thread of entp.org to explain why I was relaying your work to the site because I registered with a one and done username--likewise, I've done the same here as a proper notification. Because the entp site has been modified since last August the link to that preface I inserted into the heading of your profile under the pseudonym "Kathy" is broken.

But your profile and the thread I created to house it in its unedited form, exactly as it appears in this thread, is available just as I left it and can be easily found by using the link below. Thank you for engaging this subject with such diligence; though it may test the collective attention span of its intended audience-it tested mine-I believe your insight into the inner workings of the type are invaluable. Best Wishes!

Entp profile - ENTP.org



Exactly. Well-said.

Thank you for your efforts.

...you seem to acknowledge that all information regarding cognitive tendencies of others must have originally come from some external behavioral observation...but doesn't most behavioral typology degrade quickly into useless folk typology?

I would not say so. It is simply a fact of the human mind that every cognition we process was in some respect inspired by something that has once been perceived from the outside. Unless we embrace a mystical notion that we are born with innate ideas, we have no choice but to accept the notion above. I don't think that this course of action would be seen as problematic by any author who published on the study of temperaments, either modern or of antiquity, with a possible exception of Plato of course.

...I suppose I'm still confused on what exactly constitutes folk typology. ??

Folk typology is simply an activity of making groundless conjectures about the nature of people of temperament. There is nothing intrinsic about this definition that forces it to be concerned with a behavioristic personality analysis, however, this is a practice that folk typologists simply engage in a great deal. A folk typologist could be an occultist who thinks that he can derive valuable insights of human nature through astrology, dream analysis and fortune without providing any plausible rationale for his findings.

...You quote Lenore Thomson here, is she not a folk typologist? ??

I don't think so. For the very least, she made some effort to justify her findings. Although her method had slightly engaged in a superficial behavioristic analysis of temperament, but her errors weren't gross or obvious. At times she makes unwarranted inferences such as the one that could be paraphrased as Te people need to learn to put their interests ahead of those of the group. However, as we read further we discover that such utterances are best regarded as minor expository errors rather than evidence of deep conceptual flaws.

In the end of the day, her conception of temperament consists of cognitive tendencies more so than behaviors and this is what safeguards Thomson's work from the Keirseyan fallacy.

...Much of her book is devoted to pointing out everyday behaviors that are common in each type--you do this several times in your own piece here:??

That is true. However, I never define a type as a certain behavior or claim that of necessity a type must display this behavior. My views have changed slightly since the time I authored the profiles.

...and so on. So we can use cognitive tendencies to infer behaviors that are common for each type:??

Only if we know for a fact that the person of a certain type has the full liberty to be true to his temperament. That is, he or she is behaving naturally rather than conforming to an externally imposed agenda. And of course, the scenario must be within the context of Western culture, as other cultures can severely influence how people think even on the basic or fundamental level.

...You've devoted a significant portion of this profile to describing behavioral tendencies, so knowing about the relevant cognitive tendencies can lead us to creating a profile of behavioral tendencies common for people with those cognitive tendencies, right??

If we are to assume that a person is a Westerner and has the full freedom to behave in a way that is true to his temperament. In that case, we are describing merely the person's natural behavioral tendencies that are entailed by a temperament. However, if we want a profile of behaviors people exhibit in uncontrolled environment, we'd need a profile that is by far lengthier and more complicated than any one that we've read before. It will be full of hypothetical scenarios that include idiosyncrasies of personality, personal experiences of the individual and a myriad of group influences that an individual is subjected to. I wouldn't be surprised if this document balloons to the length of multiple thousands of pages. If we are looking to describe all possible and culturally independent behaviors associated with type, multiply the previous number of pages at least by ten.

When I was discussing behaviors in my profiles, I had two assumptions in mind.

1. The behaviors are displayed by a person who has the freedom to be true to his temperament.

2. These behaviors are displayed within the context of Western culture.

...So...at what point in doing this do we steer into folk typology???

When we start talking non-sense. Usually when we see one behavior associated with a type and assume that if a person is of this type, in all cases, he must display that behavior.

...Is the problem in using everyday behaviors to infer cognitive tendencies instead of the other way around

The former is more problematic than the latter, however, careless practice of the latter also frequently entails radically false conclusions. In the latter case, anyone who does not take the factors of external influences such as culture and external agendas in consideration is bound to abuse typological inference.

...If we know which cognitive tendencies tend to lead to which behaviors, once we've observed some behaviors in a person, can't we make reasonably educated guesses about which cognitive tendencies are the cause (even if we don't have direct information from that person describing his own cognitive tendencies)?

Only if we keep the context of the situation in perspective, to fail to do so means to make the aforementioned unwarranted assumptions.

...Is folk typology the practice of using everyday non-cognitive behaviors to infer cognitive tendencies?)?

In many cases this is what folk typologists do, however, this notion is not integral to the definition of the practice itself.

...If so, once we become familiar with the profiles of each type and the common behaviors those cognitive tendencies will tend to produce, why can't we go the other way and use those common behaviors to make inductive guesses at someone's psychological type? ?)?

If you are able to get consistent data, then yes. However, if you ignore the aforementioned factors of nurture, you simply won't. What you will have is a collection of people who seem to exhibit similar behaviors for a variety of different reasons and you shall mistakenly infer that they all do so for one reason; because they have the same type.

...Guessing about cognitive tendencies based on everyday behaviors would seem to be something the extroverted perceiver has a talent for. .

How so?

...While he won't always be right in these guesses and will not have direct access to information on a person's cognitive tendencies from which to infer behavioral patterns (the way an introverted judger would prefer), he may guess correctly more often than you might expect.

Cognitive functions represent nothing more than temperament. Unless you're willing to embrace hysterical Platonism, you have no reason to maintain that being a certain type entails a mastery of a certain skill such as discerning a person's temperament.

 

[simulatedworld]

I would not say so. It is simply a fact of the human mind that every cognition we process was in some respect inspired by something that has once been perceived from the outside. Unless we embrace a mystical notion that we are born with innate ideas, we have no choice but to accept the notion above. I don't think that this course of action would be seen as problematic by any author who published on the study of temperaments, either modern or of antiquity, with a possible exception of Plato of course.

I see. So am I correct in this definition of legitimate (non-folk) typology?

1) We must use behaviors representative of cognitive tendencies in our observations,
2) The behaviors in question must be in a context where the person is able to "be himself" free from any external constraint, and
3) We must be talking about behavior in the context of Western culture (insofar as we are discussing Western people.)

Folk typology is simply an activity of making groundless conjectures about the nature of people of temperament. There is nothing intrinsic about this definition that forces it to be concerned with a behavioristic personality analysis, however, this is a practice that folk typologists simply engage in a great deal. A folk typologist could be an occultist who thinks that he can derive valuable insights of human nature through astrology, dream analysis and fortune without providing any plausible rationale for his findings.

What about observing behaviors that are common for people of a given cognitive disposition? By saying, "ENFJs tend to do x", are we making a folk typological statement?

Of course, when I make such a statement, I never intend to imply that it accurately describes all ENFJs, just that enough ENFJs display this behavior often enough to suggest that it's a common ENFJ behavior.

Does this constitute folk typology?

I don't think so. For the very least, she made some effort to justify her findings. Although her method had slightly engaged in a superficial behavioristic analysis of temperament, but her errors weren't gross or obvious. At times she makes unwarranted inferences such as the one that could be paraphrased as Te people need to learn to put their interests ahead of those of the group. However, as we read further we discover that such utterances are best regarded as minor expository errors rather than evidence of deep conceptual flaws. In the end of the day, her conception of temperament consists of cognitive tendencies more so than behaviors and this is what safeguards Thomson's work from the Keirseyan fallacy.

I see. I've used her book as a significant source of information on this topic and I'd hate to discover it's all folk nonsense.

That is true. However, I never define a type as a certain behavior or claim that of necessity a type must display this behavior. My views have changed slightly since the time I authored the profiles.

I don't do that, either...I make an effort to get a general idea of which behaviors are common for each type, but I don't define any type according to specific behaviors. I define types according to attitudes for orienting the self and its relationship to the world.

However, I still believe that through observation we can determine that certain behaviors are common for each type, though clearly no behavior is exhibited by 100% of people in a given type.

Given this knowledge of behavioral tendencies that show correlations with the cognitive dispositions that define type, I also think it's possible to make imprecise inferences about someone's type based on observed behaviors. Often this first impression will turn out to be wrong as we gather more data, but the more information we have the more accurately we can guess.

As long as we avoid insisting that any particular behavior defines or is always displayed by any type, we are avoiding folk typology, are we not?

Only if we know for a fact that the person of a certain type has the full liberty to be true to his temperament. That is, he or she is behaving naturally rather than conforming to an externally imposed agenda. And of course, the scenario must be within the context of Western culture, as other cultures can severely influence how people think even on the basic or fundamental level.

Fair enough...I can see how external influences could bias someone's behaviors. But is all data gleaned from situations where externally imposed agendas may be at play completely worthless? Even under such external influence, people are still able to make some degree of choice that can offer us some sort of data about their temperaments.

For instance, suppose I'm working in a new office, where everyone is under the influence of company policy. My superior comes up to me and forcefully, bluntly declares that I'd better get my current assignment done by 3:00 this afternoon or I'm in for big trouble.

I'd probably be inclined to consider it more likely that this person is some sort of Te or Se-oriented type than say, an Fi dominant type. Of course this is just a guess, but the more I observe his behavior and the more data I gather, the more accurately I can estimate his cognitive tendencies, right? Even when constrained by the influence of company policy, this sort of demeanor seems more likely to come from a Te type than an Fi one, doesn't it?

Is this information entirely worthless just because we're in a situation where company policy constrains his behavior? Different types will still behave differently within the established rule set, and it seems like you can derive some reasonable estimates about people's types from this, no?

If we are to assume that a person is a Westerner and has the full freedom to behave in a way that is true to his temperament. In that case, we are describing merely the person's natural behavioral tendencies that are entailed by a temperament. However, if we want a profile of behaviors people exhibit in uncontrolled environment, we'd need a profile that is by far lengthier and more complicated than any one that we've read before. It will be full of hypothetical scenarios that include idiosyncrasies of personality, personal experiences of the individual and a myriad of group influences that an individual is subjected to. I wouldn't be surprised if this document balloons to the length of multiple thousands of pages. If we are looking to describe all possible and culturally independent behaviors associated with type, multiply the previous number of pages at least by ten.

When I was discussing behaviors in my profiles, I had two assumptions in mind.

1. The behaviors are displayed by a person who has the freedom to be true to his temperament.

2. These behaviors are displayed within the context of Western culture.

Thanks, this helps clarify your profile descriptions a lot.

When we start talking non-sense. Usually when we see one behavior associated with a type and assume that if a person is of this type, in all cases, he must display that behavior.

Ahh, I see. I try to avoid making that sort of claim, but I still think we can use observed correlations between type and behavior to make inductive guesses at people's types that can help us understand and interact with them more effectively (without straying into folk typology.) Would you agree?

The former is more problematic than the latter, however, careless practice of the latter also frequently entails radically false conclusions. In the latter case, anyone who does not take the factors of external influences such as culture and external agendas in consideration is bound to abuse typological inference.

So, do you avoid trying to make any typological inferences based on behavior in any situation where external influence comes into play? Is there no useful information here at all, or does it simply have to be adjusted accordingly?

Only if we keep the context of the situation in perspective, to fail to do so means to make the aforementioned unwarranted
assumptions.

Fair enough. This opens the door for subjective interpretation regarding how to adjust our typological inferences to the context of the situation, doesn't it? i.e., one person might think, "He's only doing that because external pressures force him to", and someone else might think, "No, he's doing that because it's part of his genuine temperament."

If you are able to get consistent data, then yes. However, if you ignore the aforementioned factors of nurture, you simply won't. What you will have is a collection of people who seem to exhibit similar behaviors for a variety of different reasons and you shall mistakenly infer that they all do so for one reason; because they have the same type.

So we just have to be careful to take into consideration only those behaviors that are not forcibly altered by external circumstances...which can be difficult to discern.

How so?

I might be wrong here, but it seems like extroverted perception (or at least Ne) would tend to lead to being better at picking up patterns and similarities between different people and using inductive reasoning to make guesses at their types, and quickly adapt to new information that contradicts previous guesses/refine our interpretation of his type gradually as we gain more information. This is in contrast to, say, an extroverted judging type, who is probably uncomfortable with the lack of precision/empirical measurement in such an inductive approach.

Cognitive functions represent nothing more than temperament. Unless you're willing to embrace hysterical Platonism, you have no reason to maintain that being a certain type entails a mastery of a certain skill such as discerning a person's temperament.

Sorry, that's not what I meant. I don't mean that being an EP type necessitates being good at this or any other skill; I simply mean that EP types probably show a general trend toward aptitude for this kind of wholistic inductive reasoning and quick adaptation of interpretation as new information becomes available, given their tendency to rely on extroverted perception.

 

[SolitaryWalker]

I see. So am I correct in this definition of legitimate (non-folk) typology?

1) We must use behaviors representative of cognitive tendencies in our observations,
2) The behaviors in question must be in a context where the person is able to "be himself" free from any external constraint, and
3) We must be talking about behavior in the context of Western culture (insofar as we are discussing Western people.)
.

Yes.

What about observing behaviors that are common for people of a given cognitive disposition? By saying, "ENFJs tend to do x", are we making a folk typological statement?.

I don't think there are behaviors that are commonly displayed by one type in all circumstances. For the very least, the common behaviors for each type have to be couched within the context of a certain culture and circumstances.

Does this constitute folk typology.

Depends on the level of justification involved in the argument. Its possible to have a seemingly plausible, but a misguided rationale in favor of the position above, however, it would not be folk-typological.

For instance, suppose I'm working in a new office, where everyone is under the influence of company policy. My superior comes up to me and forcefully, bluntly declares that I'd better get my current assignment done by 3:00 this afternoon or I'm in for big trouble.

I'd probably be inclined to consider it more likely that this person is some sort of Te or Se-oriented type than say, an Fi dominant type. Of course this is just a guess, but the more I observe his behavior and the more data I gather, the more accurately I can estimate his cognitive tendencies, right? Even when constrained by the influence of company policy, this sort of demeanor seems more likely to come from a Te type than an Fi one, doesn't it? .

I would say that under most, though far from all circumstances, a Te type is more likely to display such behaviors than an Fi type. Thus, we may make a tenative guess that the type is Te oriented, however, it must remain very tentative until more information arrives.

Ahh, I see. I try to avoid making that sort of claim, but I still think we can use observed correlations between type and behavior to make inductive guesses at people's types that can help us understand and interact with them more effectively (without straying into folk typology.) Would you agree?.

As long as the guesses remain tentative. However, I'd prefer to avoid making guesses until the requisite information is available.

So, do you avoid trying to make any typological inferences based on behavior in any situation where external influence comes into play? Is there no useful information here at all, or does it simply have to be adjusted accordingly??.

Generally, I try to withhold assessments of their temperament until I see the context in which their behaviors emerged.

Fair enough. This opens the door for subjective interpretation regarding how to adjust our typological inferences to the context of the situation, doesn't it? i.e., one person might think, "He's only doing that because external pressures force him to", and someone else might think, "No, he's doing that because it's part of his genuine temperament."??.

Yes, however, the more solid facts we attain, the less room we have for gratuitious interpretation.

So we just have to be careful to take into consideration only those behaviors that are not forcibly altered by external circumstances...which can be difficult to discern.."??.

If we wish to connect a certain behavior to a temperament, we must ensure that the behavior in question was not forced upon the individual.

I might be wrong here, but it seems like extroverted perception (or at least Ne) would tend to lead to being better at picking up patterns and similarities between different people and using inductive reasoning to make guesses at their types, and quickly adapt to new information that contradicts previous guesses/refine our interpretation of his type gradually as we gain more information. .

It could be said that the extroverted perceiving type gets in tune with the environment more easily than other types do, however, that is not all that is required for successfully reading people.

 

[CeJeH]

This description is so frighteningly accurate for me personally it's uncanny.

 

[Valuable_Money]

simulatedworld and solitartwalker are having a battle of text walls.