A Quick Guide To Double-Checking Your Type

[King sns]

I changed my type to I just to be contrary.

 

[wolfy]

I changed my type to I just to be contrary.

I've got to say, isfp looks good there.

 

[Amargith]

^ I do that according to my mood of the day...

 

[King sns]

^ I do that according to my mood of the day...

haha. I'm usually in an I mood if I spend tons of time on here like today.
If I just check it real quick or post a couple things then i'm usually in an E mood, and don't have time let alone think to change it.

 

[King sns]

I've got to say, isfp looks good there.

I just want to be like you

 

[Amargith]

Yeah..no deal. I tend to be in an E mood when I go crazy and flirt like mad on here. Consider me loud and boisterous at my So and friends then as well. Quiet contemplation, observation and serious convo without sledgehammering people tends to indicate I. Stilll all on this board though. I love Ne. I can have fun without going out at all

Though some of the Se-users on here make me wanna go out...


BTW, Wolfie is trying to go T, so you might have your work cut out for ya

 

[Lauren Ashley]

Whatever. I don't give a shit anymore, since I'm not going to change You (amar), shortnsweet, or Jag's position with anything that I say. Your types are obvious anyways.

I'm going to eat some turkey, have a good day.

Not wishing to engage in a pointless "debate?"

ISFJ.

Obviously.

 

[Amargith]

Wait, this is a debate now?

 

[BlahBlahNounBlah]

- More informing than directive

- More initiating than responding (but that one is closer)

Get-Things-Going


- my thoughts are almost totally abstract, but I prefer to speak in concrete terms

- affiliative / pragmatic depends on the situation

? ? ? ?


So I'm either ESFJ, ENTP, ENFP, or ESFP. I know I'm not an ESFx, so that leaves ENTP and ENFP.

 

[Venom]

OK, why don't you tell me what does ESFJs have in common with ENTPs, other than the fact that we share the same function in reverse order?

A lot actually. When I go through my groups of friends, the catalyst of each group is a get-things-going person. Surprisingly, this means ENTP, ENFP, ESFP and ESFJ all end up serving a similar role when it comes to group interaction. That would be the genus, while the difference you are noticing is the combinations of pragmatic/affiliative and concrete/abstract.

I both direct and inform.
I use both concrete and abstract communication.
I both initiate and respond.

All of the above is situational for me. I can't imagine being so one-sided like an unbalanced seesaw crashing to the ground.

The only thing that stands out for me in a big way, is being pragmatic rather than affiliative.
My instinct is to act independently.

It's a shame people don't realize how much these false dichotomies actually encourage unhealthy behavior and unsuccessful results in the real world.
You have to be flexible in dealing with people in business, for example, lest you end up delivering pizza for a living.

Jaguar, I think this method of typing is best used on other people that you dont know that well, and cant give the test. In that situation, people really do tend to exhibit say "directing and responding" in a way that is more typeable than just guessing. The test doesnt encourage a false dichotomy, it merely takes advantage of what happens in reality.

INTP.

Informing
Responding
Abstract
Pragmatic

I like acting on my own. I'll consider the group because it makes me feel guilty and blue if I don't, but it's a hassle.

I've noticed Fs shying away from Affiliative like not being Pragmatic makes you stupid.

"Affiliative roles require that people act in community, with a sense of what is good for the group. They may be people or task focused. They may be practical or idealistic. No matter what, there is always some sense of cooperation and agreement, even if competing or being an individual."

The bold is key. A "community" may be two people. Or do you prefer competition?

I will agree that "group" can just be the two of you. Even when Im in a group of two, I try to reach consensus before I apply pressure to arrive at where I think we should go. I think people are thinking that it means "take care of the group", which is not what it means.


I do have a question, though.

ESFJ and ENFJ.
--Both initiating
--Both affiliative
--ENFJ is abstract, ESFJ is concrete
--Both Fe-dom

Yet ENFJ is directive and ESJF is informative. Im just curious "how this works". What makes a Fe-dom be directive? Or more, how would you distinguish directing Fe vs informing Fe? Can anyone tease out the difference? Im really curious how this Fe becomes more directive, while the ESFJ Fe remains more informing.

 

[VagrantFarce]

I think the Interaction Styles are assembled based on the overall behaviour of a type, i.e. how the functions inter-operate. So I suppose that the combination of Dom-Fe, Aux-Si, Ter-Ne and Inf-Ti simply results in behaviour that prefers informative interactions, whereas Dom-Fe, Aux-Ni, Ter-Se and Inf-Ti results in directive interactions. Perhaps it's because Fe/Si creates a less domineering approach to interactions than Fe/Ni?

 

[sciski]

Random guess: ENFJ is more impatient than ESFJ?

An ESFJ, wanting to keep the peace while getting their point across, will inform.

An ENFJ, focusing on the growth of the other person, will direct?

*scratches head*

I remember reading that informing people were slightly more people/relationship-focused, whereas directing people are slightly more task-focused.

 

[Eric B]

ESFJ and ENFJ.
--Both initiating
--Both affiliative
--ENFJ is abstract, ESFJ is concrete
--Both Fe-dom

Yet ENFJ is directive and ESJF is informative. Im just curious "how this works". What makes a Fe-dom be directive? Or more, how would you distinguish directing Fe vs informing Fe? Can anyone tease out the difference? Im really curious how this Fe becomes more directive, while the ESFJ Fe remains more informing.

I think the Interaction Styles are assembled based on the overall behaviour of a type, i.e. how the functions inter-operate. So I suppose that the combination of Dom-Fe, Aux-Si, Ter-Ne and Inf-Ti simply results in behaviour that prefers informative interactions, whereas Dom-Fe, Aux-Ni, Ter-Se and Inf-Ti results in directive interactions. Perhaps it's because Fe/Si creates a less domineering approach to interactions than Fe/Ni?

For S's, D/Inf is determined by the function combination.
F=informing, T=directive.
It should figure why, when comparing Thinking and Feeling; which would be more "directive". Also, the fact that both S and T deal in "facts", and that will tend to make the person more directive. So when they are together, you will both perceive and judge on hard facts.
For N's, D/Inf is determined by the function attitude.
Ne=informing, Ni is directive.
This kind of figures as well. Ne is more open to things. And looking at it by the letters as well. J ("scheduling"; "Felix", according to Keirsey) will tend to be more directive, while P ("probing", "Oscar") will tend to be more laid back.

There is another factor Berens identified for temperament, called "Structure-Motive", which is basically the "mirror" of D/Inf, and somewhat similar. What N does for one, S does for the other, and vice versa.
For N's it's the function combination, and for S, it's the function attitude.
So NT and SJ are structure oriented, and NF and SP motive oriented.

Both factors correspond to "people vs task":
directing, structure = "task focus"; informing, motive = "people focus".

So while ESFJ is informing, it is also structure focused, and while ENFJ is directive, it is also motive focused. So you have a sort of counter-balance there. (And the TP's are the same way, while the TJ's are all both directive and structure, and the FP's informing and motive).

 

[Little Linguist]

VagrantFarce really made an awesome post there.

I'd definitely say I am an initiator; however, whether I make directive or informative communication depends on the group and the circumstances. I'd say I'll start out with informative communication, and if that fails, I'll switch to directive. Alternatively, if there is a crisis/an urgent situation, I'll switch to directive.

In addition, if I switch to directive communication, I tend to be very directive: raising my voice, having more aggressive appearance and/or body language that puts the fear of God in people. My whole demeanor says, "Don't eff with me."

However, I do not LIKE being in that mode: It takes a lot of energy out of me and makes me upset. I prefer 'winning' people over naturally, and I feel almost personally insulted if I have to be intimidating rather than winning people over with arguments or my boundless enthusiasm. As a result, if I have to resort to aggressive behavior to get people to listen, I often give myself hell afterwards for it, thinking I 'should' have done it a different way.

Nonetheless, in the heat of the moment, I often get a bit carried away, my voice booming through the room, and fire spewing out of my eyes. I never get physical - that's not my way of doing things - but I often have to repress a lion fighting to get out that just wants to roar in a massive rage. That really scares me sometimes; however, I cannot help feeling that way if I think someone is being unfair, stupid, or just plain clogging the works for the hell of it without any rational reason.

As to my language, I really don't know. I think it's abstract. Pretty sure, anyway. And I am both affiliative and pragmatic, depending on the circumstances, leaning a bit to the pragmatic side.

Now I'm checking out Lenore Thomson.

 

[Venom]

Random guess: ENFJ is more impatient than ESFJ?

An ESFJ, wanting to keep the peace while getting their point across, will inform.

An ENFJ, focusing on the growth of the other person, will direct?

*scratches head*

I remember reading that informing people were slightly more people/relationship-focused, whereas directing people are slightly more task-focused.

I think the Interaction Styles are assembled based on the overall behaviour of a type, i.e. how the functions inter-operate. So I suppose that the combination of Dom-Fe, Aux-Si, Ter-Ne and Inf-Ti simply results in behaviour that prefers informative interactions, whereas Dom-Fe, Aux-Ni, Ter-Se and Inf-Ti results in directive interactions. Perhaps it's because Fe/Si creates a less domineering approach to interactions than Fe/Ni?

For S's, D/Inf is determined by the function combination.
F=informing, T=directive.
It should figure why, when comparing Thinking and Feeling; which would be more "directive". Also, the fact that both S and T deal in "facts", and that will tend to make the person more directive. So when they are together, you will both perceive and judge on hard facts.
For N's, D/Inf is determined by the function attitude.
Ne=informing, Ni is directive.
This kind of figures as well. Ne is more open to things. And looking at it by the letters as well. J ("scheduling"; "Felix", according to Keirsey) will tend to be more directive, while P ("probing", "Oscar") will tend to be more laid back.

There is another factor Berens identified for temperament, called "Structure-Motive", which is basically the "mirror" of D/Inf, and somewhat similar. What N does for one, S does for the other, and vice versa.
For N's it's the function combination, and for S, it's the function attitude.
So NT and SJ are structure oriented, and NF and SP motive oriented.

Both factors correspond to "people vs task":
directing, structure = "task focus"; informing, motive = "people focus".

So while ESFJ is informing, it is also structure focused, and while ENFJ is directive, it is also motive focused. So you have a sort of counter-balance there. (And the TP's are the same way, while the TJ's are all both directive and structure, and the FP's informing and motive).

That all helped a lot. I have a theory that perhaps Si and Se are the key. ENTJs without any Se interest will probably be pretty "N" (ie not that involved with the world). ESFJ with Si probably is more involved with the world then, until the Se kicks in at a certain age for the ENFJ. Se definitely strikes me as being more in-your-face than Si.

--Both ESTJ and ENTJ are in-charge directing. So for them Si vs Ni doesnt matter. The Te is in charge and directive either way.
--Perhaps Te is forceful enough to be directive regardless?

--Fe it seems is dependent on being paired with Ni. Maybe Ni's propensity to see "the path" makes it more likely to give the Fe a sense of urgency to direct others? The INFJ is directive as well.

This still seems like an unexplainable asymmetry to me. Why is Fe's directive-ness dependent on Ni, when Te's isnt? Its almost like ENFJ would be a choleric Fe, while ESFJ Fe would be _______. I just wish I could flush this out more. :/

 

[Eric B]

This is the page that really helped me develop my take on the "directiveness--informativeness" of the judging atitudes:
Achilles Tendencies, the Essay

And what I've done is taken it further and identified structure/motive as apart of that scale.
Fe is Feeling, which tends to be less directive (or more responsive or agreeable) than Thinking. Yet, it is an extraverted Judgment (J), which tends to be more directive than extraverted Perception (P). So Fe types will be "inbetween" in responsiveness; either directing + motive, or informing + structure.
What ends up determining this is S vs N.

And Ni, as I said, is very directive. Si is neither directive nor informative, but rather structure focused. So then Fe paired with it sort of defaults to informative.

To fill in your blank there, ESFJ is Sanguine-Melancholic; the Sanguine being extraverted and informing, and the Melancholic being cooperative and structure focused.
ENFJ is Choleric-Phlegmatic (the only Choleric Feeling type); Choleric being extraverted and directive, and Phlegmatic being cooperative and motive focused.

Te is both Thinking (T), and an extraverted Judgment (J), so it happens to be the most all around directive on its own (directing + structure).
Te + Ni is the most Choleric (especially if the Te is dominant). Te + Si is more Melancholic, (and blended with Choleric if Te is dominant).

 

[Venom]

This is the page that really helped me develop my take on the "directiveness--informativeness" of the judging atitudes:
Achilles Tendencies, the Essay

That website helped A LOT (as did your post ). Im tempted to say that the information in that article, along with the Structure-Motive ideas, should be interpolated into a nice clean post that could stand as the "Appendix" for the OP. It REALLY helped me further differentiate some stuff.

I now really think that the interaction styles & temperaments viewed as a two axis plane is the best way to type people. The "appendix info" (as mentioned in the paragraph above), helps to flush out the temperament stuff.

 

[Eric B]

Thanx!
Yeah, Structure-Motive is strictly Berens, and those not deep into her theory do not know about it. I too had even ignored it for a long time, until I realized that it was the missing piece in my linking the "blended temperament" (social/leadership) concept to type. (i.e. S and N, which are primary factors in Keirsey's temperaments, actually pair together opposite temperaments in the old matrix. Sanguine and Melancholic were diametric opposites, because one is extroverted and people focused, and the other, introverted and task focused. Yet now they are put on the same side as Sensors. So "people/task" would be whatever factor linked SJ with NT, and SP with NF, and Berens identified one!
I/E 'proper', now become part of a separate matrix, the Interaction Styles, that are blended with the other temperaments in each type).

So Berens' "Multiple Model" is great, because it employs all of these different models giving you several different angles to hone in on a type from. If one doesn't work; try the others.

I've grouped together a bunch of my ideas on this stuff on a new page in the bottom link in my signature.

 

[kyuuei]

According to this:

In-Charge (Directing and Initiating). Typically taking quick action and focused on results, they drive the team to achieve the goal. (ESTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, ESTP)

Idealist/Catalyst (Abstract and Affiliative): Want to be authentic, benevolent, and empathic. Search for identity, meaning, and significance. Are relationship oriented, particularly valuing meaningful relationships. (INFP, INFJ, ENFP, ENFJ)

Rational/Theorist (Abstract and Pragmatic): Want knowledge and to be competent, to achieve mastery. Seek expertise to understand how the world and things in it work. (INTP, INTJ, ENTP, ENTJ)


^ both of those descriptions seem to fit me only half-way, so according to the charts I'm ENFJ or ENTJ.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

A dogmatic Ti stance claiming that because someone's values depend on their firsthand experience of the world, those values:

(a) cannot be questioned, because an individual is justified in holding any values that follow from firsthand experience, OR

(b) should make sense, and individuals who's values aren't consistent with the causal order of the universe need some sense knocked into them

An example of (a) would look like: "I'm justified in believing Y because it follows from my firsthand experience. If you don't agree, you are just naive." Such an argument may be a "defensive" use of Ti (usually used to defend oneself, but not always).

An example of (b) would be something like: "You should believe X rather than what you believe now, because X follows from firsthand interaction and observation of the world. If you can't see this, then you just aren't looking hard enough." Arguments such as this seem like an "offensive" use of Ti.

Both of these arguments exemplify Ti because they are based on the principle that the correct argument is the one that best conforms to the underlying principles of the world as observed through firsthand experience.



Oh man, is this true. Thanks for this site. It's got so much information.