Functional Orientation ≠ Typological Orientation

[Athenian200]

I've thought about this as well... here are some examples of Introverted uses of Extraverted functions:

Fe: Contemplating social rules, etiquette, political views, attachments to people, the kind of "message" you want to send... in isolation. Possibly regarding theoretical people, past situations, projections of future situations, or even the characters in a book you're writing at the moment. Okay, this one is a bit of a leap... Fe is the most dependent on and related to actual people of all the Extraverted functions. This forum might be the odd exception, because I can interact with people without actually having to deal with them in real time, and there's definitely a lot of Fe stimulation here. Writing letters to people might be an older example.

Te: Thinking of ways to apply existing systems to accomplish something efficiently/effectively. This could be used with just machines rather than people, obviously. It could even be done completely in the mind with theoretical situations or examinations of past situations.

Se: This one is the most obvious. You can get drunk, enjoy your food, listen to music, or dance alone.

Ne: The Internet, anyone? You can use Google, read books, get ideas from television, etc. There are plenty of ways to get ideas about reality without people being involved.

 

[Engler]

Extroversion is just defined as using an extroverted function more than the rest. Ditto for introversion. They are not the same usages of the words as you would find in the dictionary. That is all.

..Which is exactly why I find the use of the words "extroverted" and "introverted" in a functional context to be very misleading.

 

[Xander]

Four functions, two attitudes and two notations.

You lead with whatever makes sense to lead with when calm and whatever comes to hand when stressed, it's that simple.

Oh and I believe your observation was pipped some time ago by a very cryptic kitty saying "IPs are EJs". That's stuck with me for years now.. took a while to figure out why.

 

[Eric B]

Extroversion is just defined as using an extroverted function more than the rest. Ditto for introversion. They are not the same usages of the words as you would find in the dictionary. That is all.

It seems in the original Jungian sense, extraversion and introversion is what an ego starts out as, and then uses his dominant function in that preferred orientation. (the others then fall into place according to the various complexes, or just remain in the unconscious). Hence, the person will generally tend to follow the dictionary definition, which is one manifestation of their orientation, and then his dominant function will also be another thing used in that orientation.

 

[Totenkindly]

You may, or may not have, noticed but there are a few young INTJs, leading with Te.
You can tell by their obsessive clinging to demanding "evidence" for everything.
It's as if Ni is completely foreign to them.

Yeah, I've seen things like that too.

Maturity and life experience does a lot to shape who we are and how we use our particular giftings. It think when we're younger, our natural insecurities and tentative self-worth sometimes tempts us unconsciously to overuse a particular function as a way to justify and prove ourselves.

While the "beer and hookers" thing seems like a worthwhile endeavor, you should definitely skim some of the other threads -- use of the secondary function in a primary role (without "official type designation" changing) has been discussed in a number of places.

I'm definitely one of those that uses my "assigned" secondary as a lead function, but I'm not any sort of extrovert although I can play one for limited time spans -- I still direct myself inward and live/think "inside" rather than outside in a true extroverted fashion. But I'm far more about exploring possibilities using my rationality as a guide to tag and/or cull out the unsupportable paths, and finding a reasonable place to put [the possibility of] everything within my ideas framework.

 

[Jaguar]

LOL!

 

[Jaguar]

Do me a favor and at least try to learn something from what I said (Ni) instead of just dismissing me outright (Te).

Is this a whiny ENTP habit, or what?

For the record, you made some good points in your other post.
Perhaps I should have addressed them, but it was late last night and I was more inclined to be sarcastic.
Besides, the photo Ragingkat posted was worth it. Haha.

By the way, you need to recognize when someone is using Se in a rant.
You have a bad habit of blaming everything on Te.

 

[phthalocyanine]

haven't read the entire thread (interesting OP!), just popping in to say i use Fe and Ne a lot and i'm not a very extroverted person overall..

i don't think 'introverted' and 'extroverted' are really the same word when in relation to functions as they are when we speak of people's temperaments.

 

[simulatedworld]

Is this a whiny ENTP habit, or what?

For the record, you made some good points in your other post.
Perhaps I should have addressed them, but it was late last night and I was more inclined to be sarcastic.
Besides, the photo Ragingkat posted was worth it. Haha.

By the way, you need to recognize when someone is using Se in a rant.
You have a bad habit of blaming everything on Te.

I can't tell the difference with ENTJs who switch between both. This tertiary Se is probably a large part of what causes me to confuse ENTJ with ESTP at times, because ENTJs study and intentionally imitate the ESTP's Se in order to gain advantage in situations where it's useful.

Remember how my initial read on you was xSTP? I thought it was Se at first until you corrected me, insisting that I was mistaking Te for Se. Do you have any advice on telling the difference in ENTJs?

As you pointed out yourself, I don't know you, and Te and Se can look awfully similar in rant mode.

But wow, I just got an ENTJ to admit that I made a good point; I think I can die happy now.

I'm definitely one of those that uses my "assigned" secondary as a lead function, but I'm not any sort of extrovert although I can play one for limited time spans -- I still direct myself inward and live/think "inside" rather than outside in a true extroverted fashion. But I'm far more about exploring possibilities using my rationality as a guide to tag and/or cull out the unsupportable paths, and finding a reasonable place to put [the possibility of] everything within my ideas framework.

Yup, most people do that. Anybody who's balanced does that. When you allow Ne to take command (which is not as often as Ti), you actually become extroverted for a brief time and are virtually the same as ENTP.

Until you go back to dominant Ti mode and everybody remembers you're really just INTP, the ENTP's kid brother.

 

[Valuable_Money]

Ne: The Internet, anyone? You can use Google, read books, get ideas from television, etc. There are plenty of ways to get ideas about reality without people being involved.

I somtimes think that the related videos section on youtube (as well as all of wikipedia) was designed just to keep me up at night.

 

[Jaguar]

I can't tell the difference with ENTJs who switch between both. This tertiary Se is probably a large part of what causes me to confuse ENTJ with ESTP at times, because ENTJs study and intentionally imitate the ESTP's Se in order to gain advantage in situations where it's useful.

Are you suggesting ENTJs drag 100's of people to an MBTI test,
wait for their results, and then ask them if they are ESTP?

Then what-- we pay ESTPs so we can study them?
Do we buy popcorn?
Do we watch them fuck?
How long did we study these people I've never met in my life?

Edit: Apparently you can't think for yourself so you stole Edgar's crazy-assed, sarcastic theory about ENTJs, from the ESTP/ENTJ thread.
I've never "emulated" anyone in my life, nor would I ever.

There's no purpose in being anyone other than who you are.

Remember how my initial read on you was xSTP?

No, you thought I was ESTJ.

Your quote:
"And it's because, in characteristic ExTJ fashion, you're trying to apply deductive reasoning "

I can't find the exact quote from when you called me ESTJ,
but you didn't call me XSTP--ever.
That's ridiculous.

I thought it was Se at first until you corrected me, insisting that I was mistaking Te for Se.

I told you that you were mistaking Te for S.
I don't recall specifying Se, per se.
I think you were bitching at me for caring about details,
and I was telling you it wasn't details I cared about, it was accuracy.
(Which of course Te most definitely cares about.)

ESTP uses Ti not Te.
So you wouldn't have ranted at me for my "deductive reasoning," if you thought I was an SP.
But here we are again, and I find myself asking what is the point?
Is there one?

If I throw something at my brother's head, that isn't Te.
If I throw a parking ticket up in the air and tell a policeman to F.O.,
that is Se and Te working together.

But Se and Ti can rant as well.
Ever see an ESTP rant?
Category 5 hurricane.

WITH BIG FUCKING RED LETTERS.
It's like an explosion of Se action.
Then comes, "As you were."
Like General Patton.
It's funny stuff.

But wow, I just got an ENTJ to admit that I made 1a good point; I think I can die happy now.

What kind of roses shall I send to your funeral?

 

[simulatedworld]

Are you suggesting ENTJs drag 100's of people to an MBTI test,
wait for their results, and then ask them if they are ESTP?

lol no. I'm just suggesting that ENTJs naturally study other people and recognize situations where they can use others' approaches to their advantage.

Then what-- we pay ESTPs so we can study them?
Do we buy popcorn?
Do we watch them fuck?
How long did we study these people I've never met in my life?

Are you really this dumb or just being difficult?

Edit: Apparently you can't think for yourself so you stole Edgar's crazy-assed, sarcastic theory about ENTJs, from the ESTP/ENTJ thread.
I've never "emulated" anyone in my life, nor would I ever.

There's no purpose in being anyone other than who you are.

Umm, I've also repeatedly cited Edgar as the original source for that.

Seriously, you can't be this dumb. Obviously, everyone borrows ideas on these topics from others and incorporates them into his own. I heard Edgar say this and realized it was true of many ENTJs I knew, and so I added into my own personal theory.

No, this doesn't constitute plagiarism or "not being able to think for oneself" or any of the other dumb shit you've suggested. Fail on all counts.

Your Ne really is pretty poor, you know that? Saying you've never emulated anyone is total bullshit; it's called being human. And yes, I've actually discussed this with real live ENTJs who, despite not knowing the Jungian terminology for it, have described to me exactly how they imitate that "natural swagger" that STP types have, because it's advantageous in a lot of situations. They openly admit that the physical prowess method of intimidation is not something they do naturally, but have intentionally learned because of its effectiveness in a wide variety of situations.

Once again, despite your poor Ne's inability to recognize it, Jay-Z is a perfect example of an ENTJ doing this because Se is so beneficial in the field of entertainment. He needs to display a lot of overt Se in order to appeal to the people who are buying his records (largely SPs), because being "cool" and "with it" sells his image and therefore more records and concert tickets.

You, of course, having miserable Ne and no ability to recognize any sort of abstraction outside your own head, didn't notice, but he's doing it, and so are you.

No, you thought I was ESTJ.

Your quote:
"And it's because, in characteristic ExTJ fashion, you're trying to apply deductive reasoning "

I can't find the exact quote from when you called me ESTJ,
but you didn't call me XSTP--ever.
That's ridiculous.

Look back further; in our first conversation where you were saying Victor was really deep and whatnot, I distinctly remember saying, "Based on your insistence on putting this in black and white terms, my first guess would be ISTP."

It's definitely there; it's just older than the one you quoted. I think I originally guessed ISTP, then ESTJ, then finally got ENTJ after talking to you a little more.

Come on now, buddy--surely you have better memory than a pot-addled pizza delivery driver!

I told you that you were mistaking Te for S.
I don't recall specifying Se, per se.
I think you were bitching at me for caring about details,
and I was telling you it wasn't details I cared about, it was accuracy.
(Which of course Te most definitely cares about.)

Fair.

ESTP uses Ti not Te.
So you wouldn't have ranted at me for my "deductive reasoning," if you thought I was an SP.
But here we are again, and I find myself asking what is the point?
Is there one?

SPs, due to Se--NOT Ti/Fi--actually insist on deductive reasoning pretty often too, because they have a really hard time conceptualizing anything in non-"real" or abstract terms. Te will also sometimes insist on deductive reasoning for purposes of expediency, so again, similar surface behavior but different underlying motivations.

Now that I've had the pleasure of speaking with you at some length, ESTJ does seem silly now...but not as silly xSTP.

But it's often difficult to tell at first (even if your Ne doesn't suck.)

If I throw something at my brother's head, that isn't Te.
If I throw a parking ticket up in the air and tell a policeman to F.O.,
that is Se and Te working together.

But Se and Ti can rant as well.
Ever see an ESTP rant?
Category 5 hurricane.

WITH BIG FUCKING RED LETTERS.
It's like an explosion of Se action.
Then comes, "As you were."
Like General Patton.
It's funny stuff.

Yes, and I see you using this sort of approach sometimes too, now that you mention it. And since ESTPs learn to incorporate tertiary Fe (and its shadow Te by extension) and ENTJs learn to incorporate tertiary Se the older they get, they can become increasingly difficult to differentiate, especially given their similarly blunt, directive and impatient surface behaviors.

Think of it this way...since S and J each represent aspects of specificity and order, they can be considered as one extreme in a dichotomy of "rigid" vs. "flexible", whereas N and P represent the opposite extreme in terms of total openness and flexibility. SJ is "hard" and NP is "soft", so SP and NJ each represent some unique middle ground in terms of their approaches here.

You can see this in practice because of the apparent difficulty in distinguishing ESTP from ENTJ (and also ISTP/INTJ) upon first meeting someone, but no one ever mistakes an ENTP for ESTJ or vice versa. (Except blahblahnounblah thinking Bill Maher was ESTJ, but that's just silly!)

There's a similar dichotomy with TJ ("hard") vs. FP ("soft"): TP and FJ are each unique middle grounds. There are a number of these all over typological theory if you look for them--and hey, your Ne is great just like your Ni, so I'm sure you know way more about finding them than I do.

What kind of roses shall I send to your funeral?

I'm touched that you'd even bother.

 

[Eric B]

Here's a great study on that last point: Achilles Tendencies, the Essay (the stuff lower down on Satir and Bradshaw he says he's revising, but it does give the basic idea of the differences in the judging attitudes FP—FJ—TP—TJ, which helped me understand the types).

Also, using the Interaction Styles explains some of what you are talking about. ENTJ and ESTP are both "in Charge" or Choleric (socially) (And INTJ and ISTP are Chart the Course or Melancholic). ENTP is Get Things Going, which is Sanguine. I also believe NT is another kind of Choleric, and all agre that SP is another kind of Sanguine. So ESTP and ENTP are similar in both being Sanguine/Choleric blends, and thus very expressive, but since it is in a reverse fashion, they are very different (basically opposite in that respect), and ESTP will on the surface have more in common with other In Charge types, and ENTP will be more like other GtG types (Such as ENFP and even ESFJ).

 

[Athenian200]

Edit: Apparently you can't think for yourself so you stole Edgar's crazy-assed, sarcastic theory about ENTJs, from the ESTP/ENTJ thread.
I've never "emulated" anyone in my life, nor would I ever.

Umm, I've also repeatedly cited Edgar as the original source for that.

Edgar's idea wasn't even original. Read this:

ESTP - ENTJ / ENTJ - ESTP

It could clearly have come from that, if one read it and applied it broadly enough. I think Edgar just paraphrased it badly.

 

[onemoretime]

Is this a whiny ENTP habit, or what?

No, just frustration from having to live in a J-dominated world. You know that phrase, "like talking to a brick wall"?

 

[Jaguar]

lol no. I'm just suggesting that ENTJs naturally study other people and recognize situations where they can use others' approaches to their advantage.

Where would you get such a ridiculous idea?
Sim, the only people I can see doing the crazy shit you are suggesting,
are insecure ENTPs themselves, pretending to be ENTJs.

Are you really this dumb or just being difficult?

You know my style by now. Cut the crap.

I heard Edgar say this and realized it was true of many ENTJs I knew, and so I added into my own personal theory.

If I handed you a brown paper bag filled with candy,
and the first couple pieces you pulled out were purple,
you'd probably claim ALL THE CANDY, was purple.

What you think is "logical," I call: incompetence.

Your Ne really is pretty poor, you know that? Saying you've never emulated anyone is total bullshit; it's called being human.

Well, I see I struck a nerve of insecurity within you.
Ever been asked the question:
"If you could be anyone, who would you be?"

Unlike many who named other people, I always answered: "Me."
Not because I'm so great, or any other type of nonsense.
I always answer, "me" since I am that comfortable in my own skin.
It's that simple.
If you cannot grasp any of that, you have a problem with your own self-esteem.

And yes, I've actually discussed this with real live ENTJs who, despite not knowing the Jungian terminology for it,

You have no proof any of the people you speak of are actually ENTJ, or any type for that matter.
The claims you make about type are based on nothing but assumptions.
You are not what I call a truth-seeker.
You're the opposite.
Slap a homogenous label on it, regardless of truth or accuracy, and you're a happy camper.

Once again, despite your poor Ne's inability to recognize it, Jay-Z is a perfect example of an ENTJ

If you want to bring up that imbecilic claim again, do it in the Jay-Z thread.
Not here.

You can see this in practice because of the apparent difficulty in distinguishing ESTP from ENTJ (and also ISTP/INTJ) upon first meeting someone, but no one ever mistakes an ENTP for ESTJ or vice versa. (Except blahblahnounblah thinking Bill Maher was ESTJ, but that's just silly!)

I can see I'm going to have to start a thread on personas.
Jung: "TYPE CANNOT BE OBSERVED."

Yet we have some forumites who persist in typing people's PERSONAS.
You are no exception.

The persona is a mask created to hide the true self.
The persona is not type.
The persona is what you see when you meet someone.
The persona is what you see in a video.

What you see in a video is not the true self.
What you see in a video is not type.
Type cannot be observed.

Do I think this will stop the incompetent bullshit? No.
Jungian psychology is ignored on a daily basis in this forum.
People observe and "type" personas.
They fail to type the true self.

Case in point:
Someone came in this forum bitching about an "obvious" ESTJ taking the MBTI, and scoring INFP.
I began laughing.
I wasn't laughing at the result.
I was laughing at the irony of the person's ignorance.

And if someone can't understand how an INFP could have an ESTJ persona,
again, this is an example of Jungian psychology being ignored on a daily basis.

A friend of mine was a City Housing Commissioner.
Easily an ESTJ persona.
Never in a million years would anyone guess he scored INFP.

It's time for people to wake up to reality.
Many months ago someone commented how the people she met,
seemed opposite in nature to the "type" they were "supposed to be."

Must I keep repeating Jung?
Type cannot be observed.

 

[Edgar]

Few things I wanted to add to this thread:

Simulatedworld, you owe me royalties.
Jaguar, don't be a hater.
Athenian2000, stfu, I wasn't paraphrazing anybody.

 

[Engler]

If I handed you a brown paper bag filled with candy,
and the first couple pieces you pulled out were purple,
you'd probably claim ALL THE CANDY, was purple.

Opposing arguments aside (I'll leave that to simulatedworld), I'd like to point out that the process you are describing is commonly referred to as "inductive reasoning".

Inductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm posting this for the sole purpose of clarification.

 

[Lethe]

Where would you get such a ridiculous idea?
Sim, the only people I can see doing the crazy shit you are suggesting,
are insecure ENTPs themselves, pretending to be ENTJs.

In general, do you see learning the tools get by an environment as a form of ingenuity? Even if your inner self perceives a value in it?

Language? Mathematics? Science? Religion?

Many of these subjects have been created by other people to ease the individual and collective burdens in society. And could someone adapt without loosing themselves? How does one straddle the line between flexibility and 'integrity'?

Is this truly a loss of self or a expansion of the self?

 

[Jaguar]

I'm posting this for the sole purpose of clarification.

Nothing like "clarifying" the obvious.
I posted that candy example as an inside joke, to Simulated.
Sim and I have a history of arguing about inductive and deductive reasoning.
Our methods oppose.