This was taken from a few different conversations and then elaborated on, so it's a bit jumbled up, and of course tl;dr.
To begin...
ESFJs are less "traditional" than they are prone to adhering to current cultural values. They adapt to embody external ideals and encourage others to adapt to these ideals. That is what Jung was trying to communicate. Lenore Thompson also says Je mentality adapts itself to the external world. Any anchoring is more related to Si, not Fe.
There is a current cultural valuing of quirkiness, being "weird", etc (in the US anyway). Just look at the mainstreaming of hipster-ism (not unlike how "alternative" went mainstream in the 90s). The stereotype of the traditional 1950s housewife for SFJs doesn't make sense in light of modern cultural values. When the MBTI was created and Gifts Differing written, cultural values were quite different from what they are today. What was progressive then is normal now.
ENFPs, IMO, are less concerned with shifting cultural values anyway than they are in exploring new ideas for their own sake. Promoting mass acceptance of new ideas is far more Fe, once the Fe type has been convinced of them, because they are the ones sensitive to lack of consensus or to feeling like they do not align with their society's values. So the stereotypical ENFP championing social progress is not really that correct. ENFPs tend to pursue ideas for their own sake, without the kind of sureness that it is fair or right, but just to see if it pans out. Yes, there may be the Fi ideals of an ENFP, but primarily these are iNtuitive types, not Feeling types. NFPs in general may focus on exploring a concept over "correcting" the immediate situation. This means ideals are neither traditional nor progressive, etc, because that entire framing is far more Fe.
It should also be noted that in Gifts Differing, Myers refers to all Feeling types as "idealistic". I am reminded of how my ESFJ grandmother broke family tradition by leaving their religion for another, because she wanted a consistency in standards that she didn't find with her family's religion. Feeling is rational, after all.
It is Keirsey who strictly applies idealism to NFs. While Keirsey's temperaments are very insightful as far as social roles types tend to fall into, it is a typical pattern, not prescriptive. The same goes for interaction styles. More on that later...
Basically, SFJs as a type can be kind of chameleon-like because of the way cultural values shift pretty rapidly. They can also seek and adapt to different value sets due to idealism, not merely accepting what they were raised with.
In addition, Jung and Van der Hoop noted that Si-dom can be hyper aware of irregularities, ie quirks, in themselves, and they may view these as "morbid". I think SJs sometimes describe themselves as weird, etc, because they are sort of nervous about it. It's as if acknowledging it before someone else notes it helps them control the perception of others. They usually have a far greater awareness of things like reputation.
I less often see NPs proclaiming their supposed weirdness because of rather minor quirks; it can almost be the opposite, where it doesn't dawn on us unless we get browbeaten with such feedback. This can happen to FPs too, and there is probably a higher sensitivity when you were totally oblivious and now receiving negative feedback.
In fairness, Si CAN be quirky, because it is quite an idiosyncratic view of what is REAL, but I see this more in the humor of ISTJs, perhaps due to tertiary Fi too. And Fi-dom CAN be composed and formal, especially enneagram 4s (shame and contrived image factors). A lot of criteria used to determine type are just common indicators, aka behavior that points to a likely mindset, but they are not definitive of the mindset. This criteria is not bad, and it often is very reliable, but it also gets over-simplified. Suddenly, all enthusiastic, spontaneous people are ENFPs and all sensitive, shy people are INFPs; but those traits are not exclusive to those types, nor even definitive of them.
Plus, everyone likes to think they are special (highly common for Millennials and younger) and many profiles are written by N types who can inadvertently make S types sound inferior.
I think some ISFJ 6s make for great pseudo NFPs too. ISFJs are commonly e6s, who can seem quite ambiverted and may feel like they are philosophical truth-seekers, which may give confusion over the I/E dimension. These types also don't want to feel "common" (6s are more hung up on being quirky than any INFP 4 because of authority issues). ISFJS and 6s are painted as quite common and sometimes as not having depth.
---
I think [the confusion stems from] the romanticizing of NFPs and 4s combined with sensor prejudice. People don't want to admit they find ESFJ 2s really attractive and likable, far more than the average NFP. The ESFJs they don't like are therefore ESFJ, but the ones they like must be ENFP! They do not type people correctly in reality, and this leads to an impression of types that is inaccurate.
Integration to 4 gives type 2 a literal connection to 4s. They also share heart triad issues, which 4s may articulate better, leading the 2 to thinking they are a 4. These 2s also like to appear "exotic" (sx 2s will mistype the most, because they are the seductive variety and want to seem mysterious, etc). The 2 also gets the 50s housewife stereotype, and they can be made out to sound shallow. The portrait of ESFJs and 2s as "not intellectual" may trigger inferior Ti sensitivities. But ENFPs are given more credit there, as are 4s and 7s.
They may mistype as 7 also, due to being in the positive thinking triad & perhaps due to having the get-things-going interaction style. When I read Naranjo, I saw how lots of ExFx types seem more 2 than 7 (if you ditch the "helper" tag, a misnomer for most 2s). I think 2 is under-typed and 7 over-typed for ExFx types. It is tricky when the person really is an ExFP though. You have to dig past surface behaviors and unearth the core motivations (anxiety or shame?).... but I digress.
I am not convinced all mistyped ENFPs who are 2s are ESFJ - some may be ENFJ. But the interaction style really helps clarify which is more likely. It is underused for typing and discovering how mistyping happens, so I bring it up a lot. ENFJs are in-charge types, but being the only Feelers in that category, they may not present the way the others do. I confused a previous boss for ENFP because of her interest in different perspectives, ideas and possibilities, but she was far more interested in consensus and objecting to strangeness than a typical ENFP. So I thought maybe she was ESFJ with strong Ne. However, in time it was clear to me she was "in-charge", and that what I was seeing was common to N, not just Ne. Why do I mention this? To show the tendency to take a few traits associated with one type and assume anyone with those traits must be that type, without considering how other types may show up similarly in that regard.
So continuing on with the confusion interaction styles can create.... ESFJs and ENFPs share the Get-Things-Going interaction style. ESFJs are the ONLY J in this category. Just as ENFJs may be the odd ones out as Feeling in-charge types, and that can make them appear as something else, so too with ESFJs. The GTG style sounds VERY P. There is a conflict then with a J mentality and a P associated style for ESFJs. Since their GTG approach may be quite different from the other GTG types, they may look more directive at times; other times, the tendency is to appear very P on the surface. Bring tertiary Ne into the mix, and voila! A pseudo ENFP who is super likable because they are way more socially attuned and inclined to creating harmonious connections over exploring new ideas. Even though the J mentality is there, it doesn't have the rigidness associated with Js, probably because it is Feeling.
Of course, this is not all or most ESFJs. The reason e2 is mentioned as well, in particular the sx subtype, is how this further carries them away from certain ESFJ stereotypes. Yet, they may not even identify as 2 because of its stereotypes. Not identifying with ESFJ stereotypes may be the stronger factor than identifying with ENFP. Perhaps if the type was portrayed less narrowly, these ESFJs would not be alienated from their type.
I've mentioned before how ENFP sounds like a cultural ideal for women (although in reality, it is not quite) - ideals which ESFJ 2s are going to form in relation to (their personalities form in relation to cultural ideas, for obvious reasons). This is why the 1950s housewife stereotype for SFJs is so off and leads to mistyping. I think you said some ESFJs are more ENFP than real ENFPs? I agree in many cases.
To explain that, consider this often posed question:
Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?
Well, both, right?
Who makes the art*? Certainly SFJs may be artists. But who is really making it? I wont say it is NFPs, although sometimes it may be, but it is usually not people characterized by creating/seeking consensus. The life it is imitating is the life of its creators, usually bohemian types who are ignoring consensus in favor of exploration. But when life imitates art....well, the influence of the art spreads and trickles down the values and ideas of its creators and shape the perspectives of its consumers. What it does, via repeated exposure in various forms, is normalize those values and ideas. It creates a sense of familiarity with them, so that they are no longer strange or scary, and then the shift towards them is quite natural and sometimes even seamless. Long before the revolution (that young SFJs may partake in) is the planting of seeds in the form of ideas. The people planting are expressing and exploring more than promoting. A few generations in, and even the most traditionally inclined SFJs may be converts.
So the crude way of saying this is some NFPs make the art to reflect themselves/the ideas they explore, and some ESFJs imitate that art, or they embody it and live it. But why NFPs over SFPs? I think its because NFs are viewed more seriously, for one. And why don't SFJs mistype as NFJs? Well, they do sometimes, but for different reasons.
*Using "art" in the broadest sense.
I think it should also be noted that this is also less about ESFJs mistyping themselves as it is about other people mistyping them. I agree with (I think it was) [MENTION=10714]Qlip[/MENTION] who said something along the lines of - when people identify with the wrong type, then maybe there is some need for it at the time. It's a part of their process, perhaps. I think the ego isn't ready to reveal itself to them, or something. What is the point of pointing fingers? So this post is not with that intention.
