I am my type, but don't "look" it. Why?

[Bush]

Neat thread.

Figured I'd toss in where I think I'm similar and different from you, the stereotypes, your friends, etc. There's a hell of a lot more that I want to say on this whole thing. Maybe later.

there's a minority of people here who are *convinced* I am an ESTJ.

Our more pronounced preferences will push the other preferences into the background. Mine's squarely the N piece. You might lean more EJ than some. From what I've seen, it's clear to me that you as ESTJ is bullshit.

I put that up front since it's a direct answer to your question.

But here's a lot more shit that I have to say:

I'm also very apt to use "precedent" for solving situations and making judgement calls. My ENFJ friends (and as far as I can tell) most other ENFJ's don't really use that, and it's not their first line to do so. The reason I do so is it's less likely to make error to base something off a known.

Same. If you don't factor in precedent, you're dead. Beating your head against the wall over and over again, repeating the same mistake over and over? Ignoring history isn't a good idea, especially when you're trying to get some sense of trajectory.

It may be influenced by, or exemplified by, your/our field of study. Saying this for the edification of those who might not know: in research, especially of the technical kind, it's pretty much a necessity to review the literature to see what's been tried before so that you can root your new discoveries in a solid context. In some lines of work, precedent matters. In other lines of work -- maybe your friends' fields or the stereotypical ENFJ's -- it's just not a factor.

and I can willingly turn my empathy on and off for many situations. I don't know any other Fe doms that can, or are even willing to do this. For example, if someone around me fucks up and does something wrong, and doesn't care, even if I know them well I will subject them to what the situation deserves, and will very unlikely feel sorry for them.
[...]
I don't want to be friends with the world, I want to be friends with people who are worthy. That sounds elitist (and it likely is), but I don't know how to word it otherwise (maybe people I can communicate well with?). Many ENFJ's I know (if not all?) want to be friends with nearly everyone they encounter, want to lift everyone up, and want everyone to be on the same level field. I definitely don't. Many even go out of their way to befriend people who are "broken" or something for the soul reason of feeling "they deserve a friend" or "I can fix that". I do not feel that is my responsibility at all, and I only do that unless there is reason to do so. It's not my MO at all. I associate with people where there is a mutual gain between both parties. Most ENFJ's actively seek the things I go against when it comes to people.

In the past, I would think that those who dig their own graves -- especially those who ask for my help -- simply don't know any better, and that I was their way out. "If I don't look out for them, who will? Someone has to, right?" But it turns out that some just make awful decisions and kinda get what they're asking for, and there's nothing that I can (or should) do to help them out. Worse yet, some people are just empathy vampires, whether they're conscious of it or not.

In the back of my head, I feel that they kinda-sorta deserve sympathy, from the "human condition" perspective. But there are other perspectives, such as that they're just complete dumbasses. The perspective that I act upon is usually more practical than the "human condition" one.

I can be very driving, very blunt/forceful, and have no issues imposing my will on other people. It doesn't need to be fueled by emotion or subjectivity either. In fact, I am far more comfortable with it when I have a solid external reason, authority, or solid item I can reference in an unambiguous manner. That way if people challenge it, it can't really be debated or pushed back against using a loophole or some bullshit technicality.

Emotion alone is about the worst way to make a case. At best, it's a supplemental tool. Is a stranger going to give a shit that "I'm SO ANGRY" about a thing they did? No. No, they will not.

Most ENFJ's are fairly forward, but aren't directly blunt or actively driving of others. In particular in an unambiguous manner. They tend to do much better when it is based off ambiguity.

I strive for persuasion. I tend to avoid "door in the face" approach -- one where the other person's going to prematurely close their ears to you. My approach usually involves establishing some ground of agreement, then gradually throwiing some stuff onto the pile. Bam, persuaded. Though I've gotta say -- a brash, direct approach works more often than I give it credit for. I have to use it more often..

My approach usually depends on the dynamic between me and the other person. But if there's not a dynamic in place -- say, with a stranger -- I can establish a dynamic very quickly. For example, I can pretty quickly size up who can be "pushed" -- and that establishes our relationship. I've got no problem with that. After all, I have interests, needs, and wants, too; it's their responsibility to take care of their own. It's cool when we can find that win-win, but it's not always possible.

Pushy or no, I also hold pretty strong opinions. In many cases, it's not worth my time to express them and get into a huge discussion about them that will lead nowhere because one or the other of us is too stubborn. In those cases, I just don't care about being heard. But in many other cases, I have strong opinions that I want to see enacted. And in those cases, I can't not take over.

And if someone who can be pushed is in charge rather then me, I will make myself the de facto leader. Partly because it drives me crazy when others make the future more ambiguous than it needs to be, partly because I know how to accommodate the interests of all involved, and partly because I just generally know what I'm doing.

 

[á´…eparted]

cp6w5

This is an articact of internet interaction. In person my 6 fix is vastly overshaodwed by my 1 and 3.

 

[Xann]

You seem like a dead-ringer for a socionics SLE to me. Your emphasis on consensus in decision making and truth-seeking seems like a way to simply overpower and outgroup whatever opposition comes your way rather than coming from a place of actively being open and valuing each individual contribution as authentic Fe would.

From Socionics Types: SLE-ESTp

SLEs are willful, independently-minded individuals who are able to recognise levels of willpower and motivation in others. They are adept at organising others effectively towards any given objective, and have no problem "getting the job done". They have no reservations about taking the initiative when they perceive that others cannot or will not do so. SLEs will often act without all the information they need to go about doing something, but can be successful nonetheless. They are very active people who think on the move, and who generally steer away from a contemplative lifestyle.

SLEs easily spot power dynamics within any given structure, hierarchy or relationship, and strive for a position where they are less subordinate to others. At the same time, SLEs are comfortable with hierarchies, and recognise that they are a part of everyday life. Their main objective lies in occupying a predominant place in any hierarchy, and because of their energetic and ambitious nature, SLEs can often seem intolerant towards and disrespectful of those of a lower social status. They will often see these people as weak or inferior in some way. Likewise, they see dependence as weakness, and so strive to minimise their dependence on others.

SLEs can be natural leaders. They are often quick to assume this role, even in alien or unfamiliar environments. They tend to have a very rigid and inflexible style of leadership, preferring a direct, single approach to achieving goals as opposed to experimentation with various methods to achieve said goals. However, if the method they're using isn't working, they won't foolishly persist, but will use or find a different one. They take full responsibility for their actions, and understand these terms when they take a leadership-based role within a group, company or organisation, as being part of what leadership is about.

SLEs are in tune with the immediate physical environment, and often seek to control or mold it to their needs or to assert themselves. They often make a point of displaying their strength to this end and often follow their instinctual urges with little inhibition. For this reason they can appear impulsive, aggressive, and rash. They can be inconsiderate of the needs of others in their attempts to pursue their goals.

This just seems to be you to a T, I don't know why you haven't considered this possibility so far, perhaps it's due to the differences between Se in MBTI and Se in socionics.

 

[Mane]

Because you place far more importance on actualities, rather than possibilities, I think you are not an intuitive type, but a sensing type.

I was wondering the same...It's certainly on the boarder... But my vote still goes to Ni.

This depends a lot on semantics here and which interpretations of Ni you go by.

His focus on precedent, preset rules and the likes does fit certain interpretations of Si. If you focus on a general idea of N vs S without the functions but simply as abstract vs concrete, or if you'd go by the stereotypes, he'd definitely come across as more of a classical SJ.

But my own understanding of the functions, the ability (and need) to revise and create a new world view on the spot - seemingly long term in implication but in service of whichever perspective and position they take at that very moment - is something I attribute to Ni doms, while Si users tend to view themselves as more of a spot on a much longer time spectrum of subjective experiences, including their own but often attempting to extent further when they can, referencing their reality based on the spectrum as a whole. I think Hard does much of the first, none of the later (Mind you, my interpretations could be entirely wrong - it is based on patterns I noticed with people of various types and then trying to sort of reverse-engineer JCF to see if they fit, and there's a lot that can go wrong with that process).

 

[á´…eparted]

I do think you look like an ENFJ, actually. As a fellow Fe dom, and someone who has had two ENFJ roommates, as well as one other close ENFJ friend, I'll explain why. Oh, and a more casual ENFJ friend that I touch base with from tim

I can definitely do this as well, as can most (if not all) of the ENFJs I know. Fe doms have a large capacity to be compassionate and empathetic. But we also have a great capacity to be objective and see the social consequences of actions. I think our sympathies are primarily triggered by injustice, (like a Te-dom) or people who have been wronged completely outside their control. When people dig themselves into a deep hole it takes a conscious effort for me to feel sorry for them.

Maybe we just know very different ENFJs, because I only know one who does the bolded. And it's more because she just insanely religious and has a total savior complex. Most of the ENFJs I know like to be liked, but also realize that you just can't be friends with everyone, it's a waste of time. In the process of getting shit done, some people's toes will get stepped on, and not everyone will like you. I think it's the default of Fe to want to help/please others. But more mature Fe users recognize that you really can't win all the time and it's better to choose who's worth your time.

First bolded = story of my life, and all my ENFJ friends. All of that concern with being socially acceptable kind of flies out the window when other people are just wrong.

Second bolded I think is probably due to your science background shaping the way you reason. Once you get into that research oriented/cause and effect style of thinking it just kind of leaks into everything, at least it has for me. I don't know if I would say the ENFJs in my life like basing their reasoning on ambiguity... I think most of them are more comfortable with abstract concepts than I am, hence N vs. S. But when I think of a type that is comfortable with ambiguous reasonings and loophole/technicality arguments I definitely think more of Fi/Ne than Fe/Ni.

I think it might be all of the ENFJ's I've met in my life. If I go all the way back to high school, and filter people I became decently close with, I've come to know 8. Of them, enneagrams (a few I am a bit uncertain of) were 2, 4, 3, 3, 2, 4, 2, 3 (quite the spread when I think about it, ha!). No 1's to compare myself to. Of them, only two of them had a certain overt "coldness" that seemed at odds with warm intentions and presentation. Of them, only one of them has a full switch like I do, most of them have somewhat of an empathy switch, and two of them don't at all. One of them was pretty bad at being objective (one of the 4')s, and two of them don't even enjoy doing it (both of the 4's). All of us have a need to be liked, and we all get hurt if we are disliked by people we value (some more than others). None of them have a savior complex, but all of them at one point or another have hurt themselves because they tried too hard to care. I even have before, but the last time I did I was in college, and it was the last after a long gap of not doing it. One in particular (one of the 2's) tries way too hard to be inclusive and like everyone. She's rather opposite of me in that regard (we're both trying to get each other to move more to the middle). Only three of us (a 2, a 3, and myself) are rather steamrollery, but we all sort of do it in slightly different ways for different reasons. One of them (one of the 4's) is decidedly not pushy, but she's inordinatly passive aggressive to the point where it almost makes her overtly aggressive. The rest are middle road.

After writing this out, I think I do appear more like ENFJ than I initially assumed. There's common ground between all of us, even if I do things a bit more strongly or weakly in different areas beyond the rest.

You're statement about being a scientist is on point. It really does wiggle its way into pretty much everything I do. I'm really thankful for it, because it's helped me grow as a person SO much and overall be a better human being. Hell, it's the core reason why I unwillingly became atheist a few years ago. I'm going to bring this up more when I address JSCrothers post tonight or tomorrow.

Thanks for your thoughts/insight on this! It's helpful for sure.

 

[Dr Mobius]

How is it different? I understand that it might be difficult to put to words, and if you can't that's fine and I totally understand, but it's the big thing I am looking for here. I want to put it to words. You definitely hit a major portion of where it came from though.

I'll try to explain. I consider the way you argue to be typical of Fe Doms. Its almost as though every point you make is a form of ultimatum, Te Doms do a similar thing, but its more of progression. With EFJs it will often take the shape of an opinion, but it really isn't. As for ENFJ over ESFJ, I'm less certain of this; because my reference point in terms of similarity of behaviour is a ESFJ e3 lecturer I once had. Essentially while his opinions where just as black and white, he seemed intent on winning people over, a sort of inclusive ultimatum. You don't seem terribly concerned if others agree or not.Harsh versus soft delivery. Though a lot of that can be tied into e3 behaviour, hence the uncertainty. Well that came out somewhat jumbled.

 

[á´…eparted]

I believe that it is time that we finally meet since I have came across a number of your posts about enneagram 1 type that I have liked very much.
You, EJCC and a few articles are the main reason why my 8w9 fix has become 1w9 fix upon closer look when I tried to determine my tritype.

As for you dilema:
I would say that the catch is in your enneagram. The 1 or 1w2 part is not so important here as much as the 3w4 and 6w5 that are sitting at the back behind 1w2.
In my opinion these two are the most responsible for this unfeeling vibe that you find so foreign in yourself. Also when all 3 types are combined you get the "the taskmasker" tritype, which is one on the most likely tritypes to see people as "pawns" and insures that everyone does their job. In other words all those other ENFJs that you know are probably not 136 and sx last. What would explain the difference between you and them. ENFJs are usually sx first or second and they may also be 2s, 3s, 4s and 6s, which are all numbers in different triads.

In a way I see the similar problem as yours in myself. I am INTJ 5w6, 1w9, 3w4 Sp/So/Sx however that 1w9 and 3w4 give my core type one forceful and determined feeing that is very atypical for type 5. Even tritype type descriptions say that this type of five will be different from the more classical and random 5s that are lost in their head. Actually when I arrange my thoughs and move out into execution I can look pretty much like a 8w9 or 1w9 even if I am not one those types in my core. Also it is not impossible that I score as ENTJ on function tests or as 8w9/1w9. (5w6 grows into 8w9).

Through out years a lot of people found me to be intimidating and ruthless no mater what I do and it took me quite a bit of time to understand where is the problem. In the end it turned our that the loop between 1w9 and 3w4 is just too determined and structured for most people and most real life situation. What is even further enhanced by emotional detachment of type 5, 6 wing, sx last instinct, and unbalanced Ni/Te loop. Actuallty because of this the whole INTJ/ENFP thing for me does not work nicely as it should because the 1-3-Te loop is just too rigid for a typical ENFP girl, even if in the terms of MBTI we are perfect for each other and there is initial attraction.

Therefore I suggest that you do not take your 3w4 and 6w5 fixes too lightly since they can make huge differance in various loops of behaviour.

Well that's encouraging to know. Glad we could be of assistance!

I wouldn't say I think of people as pawns. That implies that I truly don't care about anyone at all. I do. Though it's more from the prospective of "people have rights, and I am not going to impede on them, because that's wrong". When the ends justify the means, and there are no casualties in the process, then yes I would say seeing people as pawns is rather accurate. In the previous post I made here I recalled all of the ENFJ's I've gotten to know over the years, and none of them were 1's. A few 3's though.

I suppose my tritype does play into this more. I mean, if I had a 2 fix instead of 3 I'd imagine I'd be far warmer, caring, and less inclined to get ahead, and thus be more "in line" with "classic" ENFJ beahavior. Granted, after combing through Showbreads reply I see I appear more like one than I started out thinking when I made this thread.

As far as relationships, yeah I am all but convinced I would need to be with an ExxJ, with the possible exception of ESTP.

 

[á´…eparted]

Neat thread.

Figured I'd toss in where I think I'm similar and different from you, the stereotypes, your friends, etc. There's a hell of a lot more that I want to say on this whole thing. Maybe later.
Our more pronounced preferences will push the other preferences into the background. Mine's squarely the N piece. You might lean more EJ than some. From what I've seen, it's clear to me that you as ESTJ is bullshit.

It's ironic that some people think I am ESTJ and that some in the past intended it as an insult, when it's one of the types I value the most. They have many things I lack and I wish I did much better at. I try to take lessons from what they do and integrate it into myself in some manners so I'm a more effective person.

Same. If you don't factor in precedent, you're dead. Beating your head against the wall over and over again, repeating the same mistake over and over? Ignoring history isn't a good idea, especially when you're trying to get some sense of trajectory.

It may be influenced by, or exemplified by, your/our field of study. Saying this for the edification of those who might not know: in research, especially of the technical kind, it's pretty much a necessity to review the literature to see what's been tried before so that you can root your new discoveries in a solid context. In some lines of work, precedent matters. In other lines of work -- maybe your friends' fields or the stereotypical ENFJ's -- it's just not a factor.

My field of study has influenced me heavily. Precedent is also paramount and essential when it comes to creating new work. I mean, it's not everything, but it's a start point. Essentially, you follow precedent first, and if that fails but you have some workable theory, then you explore without it. Interestingly I have had to break precedent quite a bit in lab recently and it's been serving me rather well. When I was younger I used to regard precedent as bullshit and a "cop out". I used to try endlessly to create things and do things without any precedent, with the line of thinking "I am not good unless I am smart enough to do this on my own without any precedent or intellectual help from anyone. I must preform at max in a total vacuum". Needless to say it was very unhealthy and lead to frequent failures. I got smacked upside the head REALLY hard during my first, and part of my second year of grad school for making assumptions, "shoulds", and even in some cases trying to wish/will something into existence. It was a disaster and absolutely crushed me internally. No wonder I was exausted all the time and unfulfilled. I was a stubborn assed and pompous bastard for thinking I had to be brillant enough to operate 100% independent 100% of the time.

Essentially, needing precedent is a learned skill. One I do naturally, and one I would have taken to heart at an early age had it not been for my mother, and not usually needing it until college. One of my ENFJ friends (a 4w3) is getting his B.S. in Math and EE, and he doesn't regard precedent across the board like I do. He uses it as needed, but otherwise prefers not to use it. The others I can't speak of in this regard well towards one preference over another. Either way, part of the reason I have applied to everything I do, is it's proven to be highly effective. For many, many years I FORCED my Ni to operate in a pure vacuum all the time because I felt I was dumb, stupid, ineffective, and a poor excuse for a person if I couldn't get it to operate stand alone. Maybe I've rebound too hard? I got things to work well though, and I like how it goes.

Ultimately, I think I differ with this so much because I was "delayed" with realizing how important precedent can be, and the fact that my field of study requires it so much.

In the past, I would think that those who dig their own graves -- especially those who ask for my help -- simply don't know any better, and that I was their way out. "If I don't look out for them, who will? Someone has to, right?" But it turns out that some just make awful decisions and kinda get what they're asking for, and there's nothing that I can (or should) do to help them out. Worse yet, some people are just empathy vampires, whether they're conscious of it or not.

In the back of my head, I feel that they kinda-sorta deserve sympathy, from the "human condition" perspective. But there are other perspectives, such as that they're just complete dumbasses. The perspective that I act upon is usually more practical than the "human condition" one.
Emotion alone is about the worst way to make a case. At best, it's a supplemental tool. Is a stranger going to give a shit that "I'm SO ANGRY" about a thing they did? No. No, they will not.

You know, I was kinda like that when I was a teenager. It's influenced by my mother who projected (half with intention) a martyr image, and I tried to emulate her quite a bit. As such, I fabricated care for those who were weak or oppressed, and made myself feel compelled to help them no matter what or else I was "ineffective and bad" with respect to my mother (whom I held at immensely high esteem). I would say though that this nature when I was younger was more fabricated than it was genuine, but it wasn't totally fake.

Yeah emotional arguments don't convince anyone. When I get really upset though, I can fall under the delusion that it will. So much so that my aggression gets really high and I try to force them to regard my emotional state as voracity to what I am claiming. Say no? Oh I will make you. It's a shitty thing but it's difficult to control.

I strive for persuasion. I tend to avoid "door in the face" approach -- one where the other person's going to prematurely close their ears to you. My approach usually involves establishing some ground of agreement, then gradually throwiing some stuff onto the pile. Bam, persuaded. Though I've gotta say -- a brash, direct approach works more often than I give it credit for. I have to use it more often..

My approach usually depends on the dynamic between me and the other person. But if there's not a dynamic in place -- say, with a stranger -- I can establish a dynamic very quickly. For example, I can pretty quickly size up who can be "pushed" -- and that establishes our relationship. I've got no problem with that. After all, I have interests, needs, and wants, too; it's their responsibility to take care of their own. It's cool when we can find that win-win, but it's not always possible.

Pushy or no, I also hold pretty strong opinions. In many cases, it's not worth my time to express them and get into a huge discussion about them that will lead nowhere because one or the other of us is too stubborn. In those cases, I just don't care about being heard. But in many other cases, I have strong opinions that I want to see enacted. And in those cases, I can't not take over.

And if someone who can be pushed is in charge rather then me, I will make myself the de facto leader. Partly because it drives me crazy when others make the future more ambiguous than it needs to be, partly because I know how to accommodate the interests of all involved, and partly because I just generally know what I'm doing.

I want the door to face approach to work more than persuasion. Want doesn't make so though. Often times I will thing "ugh, I don't want to waste my time and expend all this energy trying to deal with this bullshit. Can't I just, you know, make em bend by sheer force and will? It's so much faster". It's worked for me more than others would assume, but it does make bad blood if it's done poorly. I don't really know any other of the ENFJ's that I know that do this. One of them kind of does, but hers is born of a different motivation (2w1 stuff).

That said I can and do take the persuasive diplomatic approach as you explained. It's just, the way I do it is extremely subtle and it's almost never seen. The mods here are somewhat privy to it by incident, but the general membership just doesn't see it. As a whole, my friends don't either. Part of the reason is I find it's most effective when it's concealed.

As far as opinions I just... have to voice them. I can't explain it, but it eats at me if I have to keep too many in. They just gotta come out. One of my ENFJ friends is like me with this, where they just need to come out. However she doesn't have nearly as many as I do (the same 2w1 I mentioned above, we could pass as sibblings we're so alike).

Heh... Yeah I make myself de facto leader a lot. I have to actively resist the urge sometimes (it can be unfair). I just can't handle poor leadership, or unethical and inconsistent leadership. I had to procedurally step down from the officer position I've been in for 2 years in a group (HvZ) I am part of on campus, and the leadership is driving me crazy (too many P's). I'm still a mod for it, but it's like I never left the officer position because I am still driving things, mostly because they aren't being ethical and following procedures. UGH.

But yeah.

 

[á´…eparted]

I'll try to explain. I consider the way you argue to be typical of Fe Doms. Its almost as though every point you make is a form of ultimatum, Te Doms do a similar thing, but its more of progression. With EFJs it will often take the shape of an opinion, but it really isn't. As for ENFJ over ESFJ, I'm less certain of this; because my reference point in terms of similarity of behaviour is a ESFJ e3 lecturer I once had. Essentially while his opinions where just as black and white, he seemed intent on winning people over, a sort of inclusive ultimatum. You don't seem terribly concerned if others agree or not.Harsh versus soft delivery. Though a lot of that can be tied into e3 behaviour, hence the uncertainty. Well that came out somewhat jumbled.

This is a bit hard for me to follow, but I think I got it. This explains the external differences fairly well. The ultimatum bit is very astute. It's accurate, but I would have never thought of that sort of label before. I definitely do do that. It's partly because, well, I want argument to end quickly. I have little patience for them, and my goal entering them is to make them stop as fast as possible. Making things feel ultimatum like just seems like the natural mode to get people to speed along or bow. Making things harsh makes this go faster too.

I care if others agree if it matters, otherwise it's immaterial. However, it can drive me batty when there isn't a universal consensus. Partly because, if there isn't a uniformity to it, then there might be something wrong, or something amiss. It feels less true and less right. I feel like the perfect most correct ideal would have there be pure consensus.

Of the ENFJ's I know, I think we all do the ultimatum thing.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Well that's encouraging to know. Glad we could be of assistance!

I wouldn't say I think of people as pawns. That implies that I truly don't care about anyone at all. I do. Though it's more from the prospective of "people have rights, and I am not going to impede on them, because that's wrong". When the ends justify the means, and there are no casualties in the process, then yes I would say seeing people as pawns is rather accurate. In the previous post I made here I recalled all of the ENFJ's I've gotten to know over the years, and none of them were 1's. A few 3's though.

I suppose my tritype does play into this more. I mean, if I had a 2 fix instead of 3 I'd imagine I'd be far warmer, caring, and less inclined to get ahead, and thus be more "in line" with "classic" ENFJ beahavior. Granted, after combing through Showbreads reply I see I appear more like one than I started out thinking when I made this thread.

As far as relationships, yeah I am all but convinced I would need to be with an ExxJ, with the possible exception of ESTP.

I am sorry but English is not my first language and therefore "seeing people as pawns" probably came out somewhat wrong. What I wanted to says is that I can see you as someone who thinks that sometimes people need to be saved from themselfs and therefore their wishes should be overridden for their own good. However in order for a person to do that he has to be able to have some sort of emotional/physical detachment from other people. The reason why I am saying this is because I see something similar in myself and I blame my NJness and my Enneragram that is actually fairly similar to yours. Also it seem to me that you are uncomfortble with your distace from others and you are tring to change the definition of yourself in order to allow yourself to be closer to others. (What is typical ENFJ dilemma from what I know)



As far as the S dilemma goes. You are probably somewhat more Se person than me but from what I have witnessed N person that has a clear J preference will not look as a stereotypical N person. Especially since the N stereotype is biased towards the Ne since Ne is much more observable in a person and much more common in population (SJ intuition is Ne). In contrast Ni will remain hidden and it will not show itself directly unless you go into deep disscusion/debate with another person. The trick is that Ni is very long term goal driven fuction and therfore it can look much more closeminded/decisive then it actually is. For example as soon as some sudden event happens you immediately know what has to be done about it and what has to be done in order to get things back on track. If that is just not possible anymore you will also pretty instantly know what can be achieved in current circumstances and go in that direction to save what you can. This means that you do not play as much with random ideas as much as you are instantly aware of what has to be done or what will probably happen next. (and it frustrates you that others often do not see this as well)



However you can pull all of this even if you did not have too much experience with such situations. Instead you know that the laws of physics are everywhere the same and by observing the space/landscape you know the various disstances and terrain properties. What allows you to know exacly how much time/resources each person will take for a specific task/problem. In a way this is heartless approach but when you see scattered people not knowing what to do you know that you have to make something happen. Especially since you are pretty sure that you know exact solution to the problem and have personal power to convince the group that this is how it should be. This is not an easy role since you want to help people but you can't get too close if you really want to help them because you may lose track if you mix too much. What makes it even worse is that since you clean problems for the whole group people start to depend on you and believe that you can always find an easy way out. What really makes a lot of unwanted pressure and indirectly forces you to keep your distance even if you do not really want to. What then leads you to scenario that you prefer to hang out only with other "elitists" - the ones that are worthy.




If you relate to all of this I see no real reason to doubt that your typing is correct.

 

[Mane]

Wait is [MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION] outing himself as an ENFJ?

 

[Bush]

Wait is [MENTION=22264]jscrothers[/MENTION] outing himself as an ENFJ?

I think I may have done that when I listed it as my type.

 

[prplchknz]

I have no reason whatso ever to doubt your type. also i think you can sometimes come across as extra anal and unwieldy and unreasonable. but i disagree, except the anal part your just one of those people, but this isn't a bad thing and people think oh blah blah blah he's a dick but i've fought with you but i actually like you as a human and yeah but you actually care. you aren't one of those people who pretends to call people out for not following the rules to stir shit, but rather because you actually believe in rules. i don't know what this has to do with you type oh yes i think this is why people say ESTJ because that is very sj stereotype. while i don't hate you though i don't hate [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] either and she is a real estj so i don't know the answer. i think everyone else has said this.

 

[HongDou]

I dunno, after seeing that video of you, EJ, SB, and BO (lol thats an awkward acronym), I can totally see you as ENFJ with EJ being the real ESTJ. I'm best friends with three ENFJs - one 2w3 so/sx, one 2w3 sx/so (man you should see her facebook profile pictures...they're like the epitome of that stacking), and one 3w2 so/sx or sx/so. They're all sp-last and have more 2/3 influence so they're different in that sense, but something about the way you carry yourself seems similar. It's like you have this personable nature with some kind of tacit sense of authority lying underneath. It's like "hey, I'm nice and fun now but if some bullshit gets thrown my way I'm putting on a straight face and setting it to rest in a quick minute." I think you can come across a lot more critical/dry on here which is why you probably seem stereotypically ESTJ to others on here (and I know [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] also worked her butt off in the past to talk down stereotypes like that haha). So yeah.

The one valid point I see is what [MENTION=22109]Evee[/MENTION] said, but actually in your video I saw that less and more entertaining possibilities and building on hypotheticals. Maybe on this forum you put a lot more thought into building a solid base for an argument with actualities, while IRL you're more comfortable dealing with the other stuff I mentioned.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Maybe it has to do with factors separate from MBTI that give you a different perception of the world.

 

[EJCC]

I dunno, after seeing that video of you, EJ, SB, and BO (lol thats an awkward acronym), I can totally see you as ENFJ with EJ being the real ESTJ. I'm best friends with three ENFJs - one 2w3 so/sx, one 2w3 sx/so (man you should see her facebook profile pictures...they're like the epitome of that stacking), and one 3w2 so/sx or sx/so. They're all sp-last and have more 2/3 influence so they're different in that sense, but something about the way you carry yourself seems similar. It's like you have this personable nature with some kind of tacit sense of authority lying underneath. It's like "hey, I'm nice and fun now but if some bullshit gets thrown my way I'm putting on a straight face and setting it to rest in a quick minute." I think you can come across a lot more critical/dry on here which is why you probably seem stereotypically ESTJ to others on here (and I know [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] also worked her butt off in the past to talk down stereotypes like that haha). So yeah.

The one valid point I see is what [MENTION=22109]Evee[/MENTION] said, but actually in your video I saw less and more entertaining possibilities and building on hypotheticals. Maybe on this forum you put a lot more thought into building a solid base for an argument with actualities, while IRL you're more comfortable dealing with the other stuff I mentioned.

^ I can vouch for that -- [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] really does come across as less harsh irl. But then again, I think he uses the forum in kind of a cp6-fix way, seeking out things he can get mad about. Which he obviously wouldn't do in person, with friends.

(Side note: I think you can get a really good feel for his Fe, in that video, because of his very clear sense of his role in the group dynamic in each particular moment. Same with [MENTION=19948]Showbread[/MENTION]. In contrast with me -- I may be good at stepping back and making room for others, on the forum, but I have more of a tendency to barrel through interpersonal situations like an enthusiastic bull in a china shop IRL. )

I also disagree with [MENTION=22109]Evee[/MENTION]'s post on possibilities vs. actualities, and would amend it to possibilities vs. probabilities. I focus quite a bit on how things could be, in the future, but I focus almost exclusively on what is most likely to happen. What makes the most practical sense.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Some people on the forum think I'm an ISTP. I am open to that, except I am probably the most un-ISTP person in the world.

But then again, Woody Allen is typed as an ISTP on celebtypes, so anything is possible. So I could be an ISTP who doesn't look like one, but when I read posts by people like [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4515]wolfy[/MENTION], enjoyable as they may be, there's a present-oriented, carefree attitude to them with which I have difficulty identifying.

I simply don't think I prefer sensing over intuition, but I've been confused about it in the past. It's possible I use them with near-even proficiency; I am in my 30s, and that's when the tertiary really starts to develop for many people. (Although I'm not sure if the functions are even real or work in the same way as many theorists suggest.)

 

[HongDou]

(Side note: I think you can get a really good feel for his Fe, in that video, because of his very clear sense of his role in the group dynamic in each particular moment. Same with [MENTION=19948]Showbread[/MENTION]. In contrast with me -- I may be good at stepping back and making room for others, on the forum, but I have more of a tendency to barrel through interpersonal situations like an enthusiastic bull in a china shop IRL. )

Now I wanna do meetups so people can say cool things about my type! If any of you are ever in NYC just hit me up and we can go exploring! I think I was really close to meeting up with [MENTION=4939]kyuuei[/MENTION] once which I think would have been interesting because we both identify as ENFP but with different Enneagram stackings so it could have been cool to see the similarities/differences.

 

[Evee]

Some people on the forum think I'm an ISTP. I am open to that, except I am probably the most un-ISTP person in the world.

But then again, Woody Allen is typed as an ISTP on celebtypes, so anything is possible. So I could be an ISTP who doesn't look like one, but when I read posts by people like [MENTION=12103]Poki[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4515]wolfy[/MENTION], enjoyable as they may be, there's a present-oriented, carefree attitude to them with which I have difficulty identifying.

Poki & Wolfy are not ISTPs, but ESTPs.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Poki & Wolfy are not ISTPs, but ESTPs.

Poki made a case in another thread some time back about why he thought he was ISTP and not ESTP. Maybe he's the Ti subtype of ESTp in socionics?

I thought wolfy wavered between ISTP and ISFP