I liked your constant edits. It's far more of an attack now. Instead of countering with your invisible Ti (=noticing if there were logical inconsistences), you just run around asserting your understanding of the subject which wasn't even on the table to discuss anymore. Te Te Te lol
Refute, don't dispute. Learn.
I thought I didn't have Te? Making edits is like working on any document in progress; you push the save button to avoid losing work.
I am clever, and I revel in it, glad you noticed. I always try to indulge myself in what amuses me. The function names put into my posts was to explain how it works in relation to the info. My apologies, I actually thought you had *at least* cursory understanding of how they work. Now that I know you don’t, it makes more sense. I thought you were just misapplying them. We could work from there should you allow progression. Otherwise, after this post, it’ll likely just be play time.
I do have a cursory understanding of functions, but most of the places you used the function puns weren't directly related to the functions they were describing. For instance, if I'm supposed to pick up the message, "You're an SP" from "StoP, you don't know what you're doing" etc., well...I guess that one went right over my head. Seems a little beside the point.
You are correct. It was self-masturbatory. And I got off on it. Weren't you watching?
Yes; I just don't really believe you'd said anything worthy of such wankery.
You don’t know my type? Can’t figure me out? Not bothering to? When you learn functions, you possibly will. And when you learn ENTP, you’ll learn they’d have already tried and more often be correct for it.--b/c they like cracking systems and that includes systems of people. Til then, I remain more than mist less than fist. I just hope you one day see my hand was always open, regardless of how hard I tried shaking yours. If not, too bad for us both. I’m kind of fond of you. You’re amusing when you’re not being crass.
I was guessing ENTP, but I wanted a little more data before making a presumptive guess. Not openly sharing it with you doesn't mean I didn't have an idea. And drop the pretense of benevolent education as a motive, will you?
And you missed the point then, as you’re still doing now. You aren’t supposed to completely fit but have a ‘best fit’. Go read the ENTP profile on that site. It is not you. Especially read the parts about needing to structure and format and such (Yea, that'd be their Ti at work). Should I paste info for you? Like the important ones where you don’t match?
....I know. Having a "best fit" instead of a complete one is exactly what I've been preaching this entire conversation. I'm also not exactly sure how you even suspect that you have enough information to declare with any significant certainty that I'm not ENTP. I see you going out on a limb with Ne there and hoping it's right. Please, do post all the important ones that don't match. I'd love to hear your in depth explanation of my character, since you know me so intimately and all. Really, let's hear it.
I already told you lol I suspected it wouldn’t resonate with you. So yes, I didn’t accomplish what I wanted, however in time as I said, it may prove true. I am ever patient, you’ll find. And it doesn’t matter to me should I become aware of it either. I’d just hope you learn for yourself is all.
I'm fairly certain you won't believe it, but I did read through the relevant type descriptions on that site you linked to and I do identify better with the full ENTP one than ESFP. I think you're right that NTPs have a tendency to insist on being right, but I'd ask you to remember that you're only getting a small portrait of one aspect of my personality from this forum, and that this aspect is exaggerated because I use the forum largely for the purpose of practicing argumentation.
lol Two letters in common mean nothing, especially those particular ones. Saying E and T would have made more sense, not be right, but make more sense. So no, it doesn't explain how it fits but just how it fits to you. Otherwise all EPs would be similar by what you say and they're not. Next you'll think ENFP is similar to ENTP because you're ENTP. They aren't. If you do think they're similar it's b/c you're ESFP.
ENTP is closer to ESTP and INTP – b/c they have similar functions. Not ENTJ. Learn functions, learn how they relate. And you were able to guess some of it was ESFP because some things you’ve already learned from your precious typelogic profile and recognized – I almost left those parts out but decided against it. What then, if I'd taken those three little lines, you'd have agreed to it all (don't bother disagreeing now b/c you already agreed that the rest fit you--) Still ENTP, hmm? And it wasn’t “some” you recognized. It was T H R E E little lines. You agreed to everything else. That’s why I had you clarify. I wanted to make sure before going on with it because you could’ve been ENTP (though I doubted).
All EPs are similar in some ways, like say, the ways I mentioned in my first response to the quotes. There do exist generalized statements which apply well to any ExxP type; some of the pieces of the descriptions that you chose to quote are good examples. Statements such as "I don't like having to do a lot of planning" are true of Ps in general; there's no reason that identifying with some of these should place me in ESFP over ENTP.
Also, I didn't say I identified directly with it; I said most of it seemed reasonably applicable to ENTP, not a complete description of the type mold. That's an important distinction. The type descriptions on this site, since they seem to come directly from people of each type themselves, contain a variety of statements of varying degrees of specificity.
Those "three little lines" are more important than you've given them credit for, because many of the lines you quoted were generalized enough as to apply to lots of different types; I only took issue with the ones that seemed distinctly not-ENTP. Identifying with a large portion of such a description doesn't seem to put into that type if I still don't identify with several key ESFP characteristics.
If you want, we can go through each piece of each description and discuss which ones fit me best. If you're truly interested in helping me out, I imagine I would learn from this, so let's do it.
I find it strange you could say they're a bit too generalized yet you keep on harping how that's what type is about --generalizations and stereotypes. You don't get to indiscriminately choose when it fits. -- that being, when it fits to your understanding.
I said that they're highly generalized in order to illustrate the fact that many of the statements in each type description are applicable to numerous other types, not to complain that they were bad explanations of type. There are aspects of the ESFP description that apply to me--certainly there are much worse type matches for me, but I do find the ENTP one more applicable to me (though I'm sure you'll attribute that 100% to confirmation bias.) How can you declare with such certainty that this type is "not me"?
I can go through the ESFP description and point out other things that aren't really exactly right for me if you want; I was kind of summarizing in the first place...and I did not agree that the rest fit me. I said it could be reasonably applied to ENTPs--which is true of any statement that applies to most Es, or most EPs, or most ENs, or most ETPs, and so on and so forth. (And the ESFP description on that site contained a lot of these.) The statements don't have to apply strictly to one complete type and have no other meaning or value.
Did you notice the parts where--- ah, never mind (re:read above at least). There were too many, I keep and kept pointing them out, and now I’d just be regurgitating it all over again. It’s like merry-go-rounding after eating an ice-cream jalapeño peppered sandwich. I’m both dizzy and sick. >_>
I kinda feel the same way, buddy.
Yup, I am fascinated by myself, not SO but juuuust right. I make no bones about. I’d throw some at you but I doubt you’d play catch. It wasn’t some kind of attempted deception. It was full on throttle take it to the max manipulation. Wouldn't ENTPs be clever enough to notice?
Sometimes. We do miss things and make mistakes on occasion, too, especially in a limited communication medium like pure text.
Yup, that I did. Did you think I wasn’t aware? Your point?
And y'know, I notice how often you deflect and ignore what's actually written. I did point out to you in the differences in my first post about what was wrong with your ENTP version. Point by point I dissected how it was wrong. Throwing "functions" in there didn't matter because there was information backing it up. You couldn't counter me on functions because you didn't understand. There's an excuse if you didn't know about functions or how they work but there's no excuse that you didn't try to refute anything. Just kept disputing your case. Next!
There wasn't a lot of information besides repeatedly asserting that I was wrong. I suppose you think every ENTP I know in real life is also completely wrong about his own type and personal tendencies for identifying with the initial descriptions I gave.
Are the things I wrote in my ENTP description actually much more applicable to ESFPs? If they're not ENTP, then what are they?
And speaking of deflection, I'm still waiting on an explanation for why ENTPs have no Te.
George Carlin is ENTJ.
Louis CK is ENTP. And he’s freakin’ hilarious too.
Why bring Nocap into this? What do I care what he’s said to you? It's none of my business nor pertinent to the discussion. And why did you bring Qre:us into it before as well(though you took her out. Yea I noticed in edition 1.)? You can’t even objectively argue without bringing people you are bothered by into the discussion to make your case? …. What do THEY have to do with what WE are discussing? Nothing. So keep them out of it.
I'm not going to argue the comedians' types anymore; it's obvious we disagree. I actually meant to leave the thing about Qre in there; if it's not there I must have deleted it mistakenly. I brought up the others because they seemed to be using similar tactics. I'll leave them out if you'd prefer.
It isn’t your problem if you don’t care in being correct. It’s everyone else’s problem because you spread that incorrectness around. You aren’t the only one, no, but most people here have basic understanding of the functions and know a bit about how they work together.
I never said it was useless. Don't put words into my mouth, please. You seem to do that often. Really, find me where I explicitly say that typing or that the MBTI system is useless. -- I wouldn't have learned the whole thing if I thought so. And don't just find me just one thing but find me the whole 'rambling paragraphs about it's uselessness'. Did you even read the post...? Or were you too heated to grasp much of anything? Anyway, you won’t find any. Not one in that last post, or any, did I even so much as say that. You’re making it up. Inferior Ni. But I bet that if you did, you wouldn't bother countering anything and just point that out as if to say "I've made my case!" lol
I've based my conception of ENTP on reading a variety of different explanations for what that type is, and my own experiences with people that seem to test that way. I don't use "I do it" as a blanket assumption that all ENTPs do it. I do have a reasonable understanding of functions, and my statement that you were implying a lack of worth in MBTI was based on your repeated assertions that functions are the only thing that matters in assessing personality type and tendecy. I'm sorry, you didn't actually say that it was worthless, but you seemed to be implying it by telling me that all of my experience with MBTI-based typology is rendered irrelevant when one understands functions, and I don't think that's true.
You made a point of condescendingly repeating your mistaken idea that I know nothing about functions several times, and yet you show up implying that functions not expressed in the four-function MBTI system aren't even exercised at all. You justified your assertions that my ENTP description was incorrect primarily through simple contradiction and declaring that the functions responsible for the behavior I described are not even present in ENTPs, which is not true. What "information" backing this up did you provide?
Frankly, it seems to me that we both just contradicted each other and repeated "no, you're wrong" a lot. I am interested in hearing about why you find the type descriptions on bestfittype.com to be so much more compelling/correct than others.
What I’m more disappointed in was that you say you love games yet you couldn’t handle mine enough to play along. Maybe you aren’t ESFP either. Oh wait, I almost forgot!, you didn’t want to play along because it didn’t feel good to your Fi (Fi = one's personal feelings). Makes sense. You shouldn’t play. So, if I have upset you and you’re just not saying it. Stop this game.
If I didn't like the game I wouldn't keep coming back.
Or stop viewing it as an argument when it's a discussion. Not once did I insult you in any which way ever prior. The only thing I did was insult your sense of identity. I'm sorry if it's upsetting but I don't apologise for being right.
And it ends when you want it to, otherwise you’ll just end up feeling worse for it. Cuz I could care less, I’m just having fun knowing I'm right. I did say that from the very beginning.
And while you may think me an asshole, and sometimes I am, I’m not the kind that shits all over people. I let people do that to themselves.
P.S. Boyo wasn't meant to be condescending. I only use boyo for males I'm fond of. And, yes, it includes calling ones that I don't necessarily like either. I'm queer like that.
I think it was an argument when we started arguing about the definition of ENTP.
But honestly, look, this last post is the first one that you seem to have really put much effort into. It's become evident that you do have an idea of what you're talking about, and so I'm dropping the condescending showmanship at this point. Mostly it's just to stir people up in trying to probe for more honest responses; I'm sure you're familiar with the same tactic.
I'm genuinely curious to further explore my type, though, and find out if I've truly been mistaken. I'm listening!