92 replies to this topic

[Ajax]

What do deltas value? Is it really the most humanitarian of quadras?

What values do ESTjs and ENFps have in common?

[Ajax]

Geesh, isn't anyone gotta reply to this? I find ENFps unworldly and unmaterialistic but ESTjs the opposite. I just do not get what values these people have in common.

[Ashton]

Lululinda, on Aug 22 2007, 08:13 PM, said:

Geesh, isn't anyone gotta reply to this? I find ENFps unworldly and unmaterialistic but ESTjs the opposite. I just do not get what values these people have in common.

I think Gulenko metaphorically coined Delta Quadra as "old age." And I think there's a truth in that. Deltas very much seem to "take life seriously" in a way I don't present in other quadras. Whenever I think of the stereotype of "being mature" I've always pictured a Delta-esque person. Lol... I have a 3 year-old niece who's ENFp, and she's always telling *me* how to behave. "Don't run in the house!" "Don't say that word it's bad!" "Turn your music down people are trying to sleep!" It's pretty funny.

Anyway... ESTjs and ENFps are a lot more common underneath than one might assume from outward appearances. In a certain sense, I think of ENFps having a "ESTj sub-personality" and ESTjs having a "ENFp sub-personality." To me, ESTjs and ENFps are a lot like flipped mirror images of eachother.

Generalizations and Stereotypes:

ESTjs:

-ESTjs (primarily Te-subtypes) tend to be very conscientious folks who much enjoy playing by the rules and going with the system... to the point that their whole identities can even become staked in it. They'll become the model "society man" and/or spend the rest of their lives trying to live up to that image. And the ones that succeed at it can often become highly-esteemed figures in whatever their field is.
-They aren't ones to "rock the boat" much when placed in charge of something, preferring to rely on established reliably tested methods and standard operating procedures. For them, maintenance is far more important than innovation. Though they actually do do a lot of -tinkering in a way that's hard to describe, and get really excited about whatever their latches onto and get totally caught up in it thinking it's just the greatest thing ever and that everyone else should see it too.
-Observance of hierarchies is important to them, as is taking on the role of "provider" for their mate and/or family. ESTjs tend to be very leisurely and seen as rather grounded/down-to-Earth sorts of people. Interestingly... a lot of them, particularly the Te-subtypes, come off to me as quite sensitive (and whiny even). Emotional strife in their personal lives seems to be gravely upsetting for them and their reactions to it are very infantile.

ENFps:

-Outwardly, ENFps will seem very much different from this. Many are seen as zany, scattered, erratic, artsy. Some seen as wanting to shake things up, be agents of reform, push new ideas, change the system, promote activism, and be avant-garde social radicals. This is all very surface stuff () though.
-Get beyond the surface, and they're actually the same as ESTjs in many ways and value the same sorts of things. The bubbly exterior belies a very pragmatically-minded individual. And a deference to the hierarchy of whatever they are associated with and a reliant respect for whatever it is they consider authoritative. Especially on matters, ENFps look to what is established/authoritative... or even become sources of it themselves (ENFps Dr. Andrew Weil and Paula Begoun are prime examples of this). In a group situation, you'll see ENFps pick out people they consider as the reliable/reasonable ones and treat them as authorities to rely on. Usually this ends up being the person(s) with the most , especially if it's an ESTj lol (you can witness this phenomenon at 16types and see how all the ENFps [and INFjs] clamor around Te-ESTj Expat and think he's the greatest thing ever).
-By and large, I think once you see past the ENFps outer-wackiness, you find a very seemingly grounded/down-to-Earth person here as well... and in many cases this becomes much more self-evident as ENFps get older.

[Ajax]

Ashton, on Aug 28 2007, 10:49 PM, said:

I think Gulenko metaphorically coined Delta Quadra as "old age." And I think there's a truth in that. Deltas very much seem to "take life seriously" in a way I don't present in other quadras. Whenever I think of the stereotype of "being mature" I've always pictured a Delta-esque person. Lol... I have a 3 year-old niece who's ENFp, and she's always telling *me* how to behave. "Don't run in the house!" "Don't say that word it's bad!" "Turn your music down people are trying to sleep!" It's pretty funny.

Anyway... ESTjs and ENFps are a lot more common underneath than one might assume from outward appearances. In a certain sense, I think of ENFps having a "ESTj sub-personality" and ESTjs having a "ENFp sub-personality." To me, ESTjs and ENFps are a lot like flipped mirror images of eachother.

Generalizations and Stereotypes:

ESTjs:

-ESTjs (primarily Te-subtypes) tend to be very conscientious folks who much enjoy playing by the rules and going with the system... to the point that their whole identities can even become staked in it. They'll become the model "society man" and/or spend the rest of their lives trying to live up to that image. And the ones that succeed at it can often become highly-esteemed figures in whatever their field is.
-They aren't ones to "rock the boat" much when placed in charge of something, preferring to rely on established reliably tested methods and standard operating procedures. For them, maintenance is far more important than innovation. Though they actually do do a lot of -tinkering in a way that's hard to describe, and get really excited about whatever their latches onto and get totally caught up in it thinking it's just the greatest thing ever and that everyone else should see it too.
-Observance of hierarchies is important to them, as is taking on the role of "provider" for their mate and/or family. ESTjs tend to be very leisurely and seen as rather grounded/down-to-Earth sorts of people. Interestingly... a lot of them, particularly the Te-subtypes, come off to me as quite sensitive (and whiny even). Emotional strife in their personal lives seems to be gravely upsetting for them and their reactions to it are very infantile.

ENFps:

-Outwardly, ENFps will seem very much different from this. Many are seen as zany, scattered, erratic, artsy. Some seen as wanting to shake things up, be agents of reform, push new ideas, change the system, promote activism, and be avant-garde social radicals. This is all very surface stuff () though.
-Get beyond the surface, and they're actually the same as ESTjs in many ways and value the same sorts of things. The bubbly exterior belies a very pragmatically-minded individual. And a deference to the hierarchy of whatever they are associated with and a reliant respect for whatever it is they consider authoritative. Especially on matters, ENFps look to what is established/authoritative... or even become sources of it themselves (ENFps Dr. Andrew Weil and Paula Begoun are prime examples of this). In a group situation, you'll see ENFps pick out people they consider as the reliable/reasonable ones and treat them as authorities to rely on. Usually this ends up being the person(s) with the most , especially if it's an ESTj lol (you can witness this phenomenon at 16types and see how all the ENFps [and INFjs] clamor around Te-ESTj Expat and think he's the greatest thing ever).
-By and large, I think once you see past the ENFps outer-wackiness, you find a very seemingly grounded/down-to-Earth person here as well... and in many cases this becomes much more self-evident as ENFps get older.

This is very insightful and it makes a lot of sense.

On another but awfully controversial note, is Expat really not an ENTj? Why would you think he is an ESTJ? I do think he has risen to almost god-like status amongst the ENFps and INFjs. I find the way they adhere to his ideas interesting but often not in a good way.

P.S Please PM me your response if you would rather not answer these questions publicly.

[Ashton]

Lululinda, on Aug 30 2007, 07:18 PM, said:

This is very insightful and it makes a lot of sense.

Thanks! BTW, if anything I say doesn't make sense... then tell me and I'll try to clarify. Or maybe sometimes I actually need a reality check altogether and my perception needs corrected. I don't want people to feel skittish about that.

Quote

On another but awfully controversial note, is Expat really not an ENTj? Why would you think he is an ESTJ? I do think he has risen to almost god-like status amongst the ENFps and INFjs. I find the way they adhere to his ideas interesting but often not in a good way.

He's Te-ESTj... and a walking Delta stereotype caricature to the max in every way there can be, heh. He does gush blastwaves of but there is no or anywhere in sight, so he can't be Gamma. I can't think of specific examples of things he's said/done which demonstrate this lacking, but if you observe him even just a little bit with this is mind... it become readily apparent.

He has an open attitude of contempt towards Beta quadra. And never fails to talk about Beta using shitty stereotypes that they are all shallow/rude/cruel/manipulative/evil/etc. This is not something Gammas do, as Gammas tend to have congenial relations with other Betas. This is something Deltas do... and it makes sense, since Beta is Delta's conflicting quadra.

Combine that with the obvious fact that he has really stellar relations with other Deltas on the board, and I think this alone vastly weakens the case for him being ENTj. I notice he tries to retype a lot of other Deltas as Gammas too lol. The Socionics relation patterns mean a lot, and they're an interesting demonstration in this case. If they are to be taken seriously, then Expat has to be ESTj.

Beyond that, there's so much more about him that just doesn't sync at all with how ENTjs are...:

-He is way too serious, too uptight, too into "acting proper"
-He's not funny and never even tries to be
-Way too dry, too boring, too awkward-ish
-Gloats about "what is ethical" too much and prides too much on it
-He talks *at* people more than he actually talks *to* people, always uses an officious tone
-Takes his own personal prejudices and portrays them as established fact
-In the videos I saw of him, he seems like a precariously uncoordinated person all around. He bumbles/waddles when he walks, he's annoyingly slooooow, and it's like he's almost not sure where he's going lol... ENTjs don't do this. They have certain, swift, sharp, precise movements... like they are always on a mission lol.

The only actual ENTjs I know about on any of the forums are FDG and myself.

[Herzy]

"Ashton" said:

The only actual ENTjs I know about on any of the forums are FDG and myself.

What about our best friend Joy?

[Ashton]

Rompedask, on Sep 1 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

What about our best friend Joy?

ESFj.

[Ajax]

Ashton, on Sep 2 2007, 02:50 AM, said:

Hah... fucking ESFj trailerpark-spawn

Shit like Joy is what happens when you combine white trash ex-strippers + the Internet

Why ESFj?


Oh and Rick what type do you think he is?

[Ashton]

Lululinda, on Sep 1 2007, 09:04 PM, said:

Why ESFj?

ESFj (Si subtype) because...:

Very -driven person, except not in a very good way. She uses to manipulate the social dynamics of the forum, and she does it well. Most people there genuinely LIKE her and think she is great. She gets involved in people's personal lives on there, talks to a lot of people in private and readily interjects her advice on people's personal problems and anything else. The entire forum is basically a social klatch club to her. This is a distinct non-ENTj quality.

She will never use and will quite simply ignore any arguments made against her and dismisses them as if it didn't even happen. She is a brick wall to it and refuses to have anything to do with it. This is a role at work in ESFjs.

She does use some cursory ... she can talk about Socionics as a model and has a predilection for talking about it exclusively in terms. She will readily provide directly-quoted descriptions and definitions from Socionics authors, etc. as "proof" of whatever arguments she wants to make.

Then uses a lot of (agenda) to tweak and spin things around, make bizarre extrapolations, and force-fit pieces of it all together... in order to recast the "proof" as a "confirmation" of whatever it is she wants it to confirm. Unhealthy ESFjs are notorious for spinning and reinterpreting things in whatever way it takes confirm their own biases and no amount of reason will convince them otherwise. They will not listen to you.

She looks down on as if it is distasteful+inferior, and avoids any form of direct confrontation. Very passive-aggressive. Oh... and if somebody does confront her, instead of actually engaging the person... she redefines the person and tries to publicly undermine them by scrutinizing their psychological makeup. Suddenly turns into an armchair psychiatrist and claims you're only saying this or that because you have mental problems, or because you're really this type, etc.

I could go into how she has an PoLR, but this is enough I think.

Also, her boyfriend DJ is Ti-ENTp and I think they have something like a Mirror relation.

Quote

Oh and Rick what type do you think he is?

Fi-INFj.

[eunice]

Ashton, on Aug 28 2007, 09:49 PM, said:

Generalizations and Stereotypes:

ESTjs:

-ESTjs (primarily Te-subtypes) tend to be very conscientious folks who much enjoy playing by the rules and going with the system... to the point that their whole identities can even become staked in it. They'll become the model "society man" and/or spend the rest of their lives trying to live up to that image. And the ones that succeed at it can often become highly-esteemed figures in whatever their field is.
-They aren't ones to "rock the boat" much when placed in charge of something, preferring to rely on established reliably tested methods and standard operating procedures. For them, maintenance is far more important than innovation. Though they actually do do a lot of -tinkering in a way that's hard to describe, and get really excited about whatever their latches onto and get totally caught up in it thinking it's just the greatest thing ever and that everyone else should see it too.
-Observance of hierarchies is important to them, as is taking on the role of "provider" for their mate and/or family. ESTjs tend to be very leisurely and seen as rather grounded/down-to-Earth sorts of people. Interestingly... a lot of them, particularly the Te-subtypes, come off to me as quite sensitive (and whiny even). Emotional strife in their personal lives seems to be gravely upsetting for them and their reactions to it are very infantile.

ENFps:

-Outwardly, ENFps will seem very much different from this. Many are seen as zany, scattered, erratic, artsy. Some seen as wanting to shake things up, be agents of reform, push new ideas, change the system, promote activism, and be avant-garde social radicals. This is all very surface stuff () though.
-Get beyond the surface, and they're actually the same as ESTjs in many ways and value the same sorts of things. The bubbly exterior belies a very pragmatically-minded individual. And a deference to the hierarchy of whatever they are associated with and a reliant respect for whatever it is they consider authoritative. Especially on matters, ENFps look to what is established/authoritative... or even become sources of it themselves (ENFps Dr. Andrew Weil and Paula Begoun are prime examples of this). In a group situation, you'll see ENFps pick out people they consider as the reliable/reasonable ones and treat them as authorities to rely on. Usually this ends up being the person(s) with the most , especially if it's an ESTj lol (you can witness this phenomenon at 16types and see how all the ENFps [and INFjs] clamor around Te-ESTj Expat and think he's the greatest thing ever).
-By and large, I think once you see past the ENFps outer-wackiness, you find a very seemingly grounded/down-to-Earth person here as well... and in many cases this becomes much more self-evident as ENFps get older.

I really like your descriptions, Ashton.

I would like to read what you have to say about INFj and ISTp as well (if you don't mind).

[Ajax]

eunice, on Sep 3 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

I really like your descriptions, Ashton.

I would like to read what you have to say about INFj and ISTp as well (if you don't mind).

I have been thinking about this recently as well. Ashton (if you see this) can you say how ISTps and INFjs fit in with the whole delta spirit? Are INFjs pragmatic too? ESTjs seem rather socially conscious are ISTps/INFjs also like this?

[Ashton]

eunice, on Sep 3 2007, 08:58 AM, said:

I really like your descriptions, Ashton.

I would like to read what you have to say about INFj and ISTp as well (if you don't mind).

Thanks.

I don't have my instincts wrapped around INFj and ISTp yet, especially INFj. I have a decent contour of ISTp mapped out, but it needs to be developed further. INFj is more or less a complete blind spot for me at the moment. Known a few acquaintances who were INFj... but I've never known any personally or had a chance to interact with any enough to start getting a feel for the essence of what an INFj is about. I'll try to work on that. In the meantime, you might ask Sarah about this.

[Ashton]

Lululinda, on Sep 6 2007, 03:30 PM, said:

I have been thinking about this recently as well. Ashton (if you see this) can you say how ISTps and INFjs fit in with the whole delta spirit? Are INFjs pragmatic too? ESTjs seem rather socially conscious are ISTps/INFjs also like this?

ISTps and INFjs definitely fit in with the Delta spirit. The manifestation is different from ENFps and ESTjs, but it's unmistakable essential Delta-ness nevertheless.

Yes, INFjs are pragmatic, at least the ones I've been acquainted with. They were Fi-subtypes though. I think the Ne-subtypes (the ones I'm familiar with so far) can be kind of goofball-ish, and not intentionally so. Like they try to be pragmatic, and even firmly believe that they are. But to a more astutely pragmatic observer, the Ne-INFj will look really bumbling as if they can't seem to ever get it right or something. Hard to explain... examples of Ne-INFjs are rmcnew, Rick, Jimmy Carter, and George Lucas. Might give you an idea of them. For Fi-INFjs, Diana from 16types is a good example... as are Gwyneth Paltrow, Emma Thompson, and Jodie Foster. Morgan Freeman and Adrien Brody are likely Fi-INFj too.

INFjs/ISTps socially conscious? Not sure. I'm inclined to say yes, that in general that would hold true. Though also... being socially conscious wouldn't necessarily imply that one is socially active. Like for example, the Si-ISTp I knew recently was very adept at reading people's feelings, and having a very good awareness about what other people were really like, etc. But he tended to be really shy too and had a difficult time initiating social interaction. Funny, when I knew him I finally got an awareness of what Supervision relations are like... which I don't notice with Te-ISTps.

Anyway yeah, I'll have to develop my perceptions further on this before I can say anything more reliable.

[BulletsAndDoves]

Yeah Expat as ESTj makes sense.

It makes sense a lot because I rarely like Expat and we do seem to be natural conflictors. Even when I try to stick up for him it just makes him go 'errr yeah.'

I find him and Diana always having their heads up each other's asses hilarious though. I guess I do the same with my dual so whatever.

Also Gilly was clearly right to me. Diana is INFj, not ISFj. *sigh*

[FDG]

How did the supervision from the ISTp play out? I'm interested.

In any case, I know it is unrelated, and I also know you probably detest him, but I think Smilingeyes is another genuine ENTj.

[Ashton]

FDG, on Sep 7 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

How did the supervision from the ISTp play out? I'm interested.

Seems like the Si-ISTp was often saving my ass during some group discussions. Like there were often times when I would say something that'd come off as sounding vague to everyone else. Or even offensive. But he seemed to be able to discern my real motives for saying the things I did and would jump in and clarify it to everyone else, and tell them what I was trying to get at and why I was saying what I was. Which I thought was really cool and I really appreciated it. It really seemed as though the Supervision was coming off in some sort of way. And he just seemed like... I dunno. A warm, genuinely nice person. And it always made me really disarmed towards him and I always had a compulsive urge to be really nice to him.

Quote

In any case, I know it is unrelated, and I also know you probably detest him, but I think Smilingeyes is another genuine ENTj.

Why? I think he's Te-ESTj because he reminds me too much of Expat (Te-ESTj) and Cone (Te-ISTp). He's different from Expat though in some subtle ways I can't quite put my finger on, it could be different Enneagram types. But still talks too much... like a big sprawl of + that lacks any basis. He talks *at* people instead of *to* them, and he comes off too haughty IMO.

[Diana]

BulletsAndDoves, on Sep 7 2007, 11:37 AM, said:

Yeah Expat as ESTj makes sense.

It makes sense a lot because I rarely like Expat and we do seem to be natural conflictors. Even when I try to stick up for him it just makes him go 'errr yeah.'

I find him and Diana always having their heads up each other's asses hilarious though. I guess I do the same with my dual so whatever.

Also Gilly was clearly right to me. Diana is INFj, not ISFj. *sigh*

Gah. I've never had my head up Expat's ass. There's been many times when I was the only one who was arguing with him over something. Bleh. As far as my type goes, eh. I spent way too much time looking at the two types I was considering, reading all the descriptions, going over the functions, and it's pretty obvious to me which one I am, and which one I'm not, and can't be. It isn't important, and doesn't really matter which one fits better according to your perception - if it works for you go with it. I don't care about that. I do however resent anyone suggesting in any way that I would be such a sheep as to follow and look up to anyone in the manner suggested. I always have and always will have my own mind.

[Ajax]

Diana, on Sep 11 2007, 04:31 AM, said:

Gah. I've never had my head up Expat's ass. There's been many times when I was the only one who was arguing with him over something. Bleh. As far as my type goes, eh. I spent way too much time looking at the two types I was considering, reading all the descriptions, going over the functions, and it's pretty obvious to me which one I am, and which one I'm not, and can't be. It isn't important, and doesn't really matter which one fits better according to your perception - if it works for you go with it. I don't care about that. I do however resent anyone suggesting in any way that I would be such a sheep as to follow and look up to anyone in the manner suggested. I always have and always will have my own mind.

Diana, I did a quick check of a couple of your posts over at the 16types. I have to say you seem rather more persistent than I would expect from an INFj but at the same time you come across as very intuitive (Ne)to me as well, I am even wondering if it is the influence of your that has you thinking you might be an ISFj. Your reaction to sort of leave behind all the stuff you had to put up with by one person over there in particular suggests INFj in that you seem to have in the end resorted to avoidance and withdrawal. In favor of ISFj rather than INFj, you actually do not irritate me at all or come across as lame to me, in fact I think I agree with your perspectives in a lot of your posts that I read.

Do you think you have a dual type relationship with Expat?

[Ajax]

BulletsAndDoves, on Sep 7 2007, 06:37 PM, said:

Yeah Expat as ESTj makes sense.

It makes sense a lot because I rarely like Expat and we do seem to be natural conflictors. Even when I try to stick up for him it just makes him go 'errr yeah.'

I find him and Diana always having their heads up each other's asses hilarious though. I guess I do the same with my dual so whatever.

Also Gilly was clearly right to me. Diana is INFj, not ISFj. *sigh*

I have such mixed feelings about Expat. I like him most times but other times I get angry and deeply wonder if he is crazy when I read some of the things he writes. It feels like super-ego or at least like I am dealing with someone from delta.

[Ajax]

Ashton, on Sep 7 2007, 05:56 AM, said:

ISTps and INFjs definitely fit in with the Delta spirit. The manifestation is different from ENFps and ESTjs, but it's unmistakable essential Delta-ness nevertheless.

Yes, INFjs are pragmatic, at least the ones I've been acquainted with. They were Fi-subtypes though. I think the Ne-subtypes (the ones I'm familiar with so far) can be kind of goofball-ish, and not intentionally so. Like they try to be pragmatic, and even firmly believe that they are. But to a more astutely pragmatic observer, the Ne-INFj will look really bumbling as if they can't seem to ever get it right or something. Hard to explain... examples of Ne-INFjs are rmcnew, Rick, Jimmy Carter, and George Lucas. Might give you an idea of them. For Fi-INFjs, Diana from 16types is a good example... as are Gwyneth Paltrow, Emma Thompson, and Jodie Foster. Morgan Freeman and Adrien Brody are likely Fi-INFj too.

INFjs/ISTps socially conscious? Not sure. I'm inclined to say yes, that in general that would hold true. Though also... being socially conscious wouldn't necessarily imply that one is socially active. Like for example, the Si-ISTp I knew recently was very adept at reading people's feelings, and having a very good awareness about what other people were really like, etc. But he tended to be really shy too and had a difficult time initiating social interaction. Funny, when I knew him I finally got an awareness of what Supervision relations are like... which I don't notice with Te-ISTps.

Anyway yeah, I'll have to develop my perceptions further on this before I can say anything more reliable.

Thanks for this response Ashton. The ethical/intuitive subtypes of INFjs often seem like totally different types. I do not think I have ever read a very good description of INFjs

[Ashton]

Lululinda, on Sep 12 2007, 05:47 PM, said:

Thanks for this response Ashton. The ethical/intuitive subtypes of INFjs often seem like totally different types. I do not think I have ever read a very good description of INFjs

Sure. Subtypes between types make a huge difference... so much so, that for all practical purposes, I treat them as separate types altogether.

Like for example between Ni-ENFj and Fe-ENFj, it's the difference between Adolf Hitler and John F. Kennedy
Or between Si-ESTj vs. Te-ESTj... it's the difference between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Tony Blair
Ne-ENTp vs. Ti-ENTp... Brad Pitt vs. Bill Gates
Se-ISFj vs. Fi-ISFj... Bob Dylan vs. Barack Obama

So on and so forth. It makes it a lot harder to type accurately without taking subtypes into account.

Not sure if I've read a good description of INFjs either... or any type, really. Long descriptions are open to too many misinterpretations and missing context, etc.

[eunice]

Ashton, on Sep 7 2007, 04:56 AM, said:

Yes, INFjs are pragmatic, at least the ones I've been acquainted with. They were Fi-subtypes though. I think the Ne-subtypes (the ones I'm familiar with so far) can be kind of goofball-ish, and not intentionally so.Like they try to be pragmatic, and even firmly believe that they are. But to a more astutely pragmatic observer, the Ne-INFj will look really bumbling as if they can't seem to ever get it right or something. Hard to explain... examples of Ne-INFjs are rmcnew, Rick, Jimmy Carter, and George Lucas. Might give you an idea of them. For Fi-INFjs, Diana from 16types is a good example... as are Gwyneth Paltrow, Emma Thompson, and Jodie Foster. Morgan Freeman and Adrien Brody are likely Fi-INFj too.

Anyway yeah, I'll have to develop my perceptions further on this before I can say anything more reliable.

Lululinda, on Sep 12 2007, 10:47 PM, said:

Thanks for this response Ashton. The ethical/intuitive subtypes of INFjs often seem like totally different types. I do not think I have ever read a very good description of INFjs

I feel that Ashton gave a rather accurate descriptions for both subtypes. I haven't really read an INFj description which can be applied to both subtypes. In fact, they seem to be describing more about the Fi subtype. Btw, I'm a Ne subtype.

Some general differences between INFj-Fi and INFj-Ne which I have observed:

INFj-Fi
INFj-Fi tend to resemble ISFj. They are more serious, disciplined and business-like. They are the ones who excel academically and tend to choose practical or professional courses in school. They are very focused and have a clear idea of what they want in life, so they tend not to deviate from the long-term goals they have set. They tend to keep their opinions to themselves so as to avoid conflict. They look gentle and sophisticated and they dress well, often adhering to a classical style. INFj-Fi believe in lifelong learning, but they will spend their time and effort on something relevant eg. career-related. In this area, they tend to dispense less energy than INFj-Ne, who is more scattered and enthusiastic about anything which excites them at the moment. INFj-Fi can be quietly critical of others who don't match up to their standard of morality. INFj-Fi are more confident of their Si ability eg. sports, housework.

INFj-Ne
INFj-Ne tend to be mistaken as ISFp-Si sometimes. Like what Ashton mentioned, they can be kind of goofball-ish unintentionally. This can lead others to laugh with (or at) them even though the INFj-Ne didn't intend something she had said as a joke. Therefore, some INFj-Ne I have known are not treated seriously by others. They are also less decisive as compared to the INFj-Fi because of their preference to come up with different ideas and possibilties rather than committing to what they call a dead-end path. As such, they might appear unsure of themselves and can have low self-esteem because they are always hoping for something better. Academically, they can be less successful than INFj-Fi because they tend to give up on projects which they feel have lack of purpose or do not apply to their interest, and they tend not to follow through their work and notes. However, they are always constantly improving themselves and they are open to trying new things to see whether there's a long-term potential to it. To them, there are no limits in learning, even if it might not be relevant to their course of study or career. In terms of appearance and fashion, INFj-Ne usually follow what they strongly believe in and even though they are concerned about how they are perceived by others, they still prefer to satisfy themselves first, as long as it is not something too outrageous (eg. shaving off all their hair, wearing loud unmatching colors etc.).

[Diana]

Lululinda, on Sep 12 2007, 04:20 PM, said:

Diana, I did a quick check of a couple of your posts over at the 16types. I have to say you seem rather more persistent than I would expect from an INFj but at the same time you come across as very intuitive (Ne)to me as well, I am even wondering if it is the influence of your that has you thinking you might be an ISFj. Your reaction to sort of leave behind all the stuff you had to put up with by one person over there in particular suggests INFj in that you seem to have in the end resorted to avoidance and withdrawal. In favor of ISFj rather than INFj, you actually do not irritate me at all or come across as lame to me, in fact I think I agree with your perspectives in a lot of your posts that I read.

Do you think you have a dual type relationship with Expat?

It wasn't just one person, and it's not avoidance and withdrawal. Basically there's a schoolyard mentality - a couple bullies, their groupies, a lame admin who has no idea how to handle anything, the kids who get picked on or try to stir things up, and the rest who don't really care. It got to the point where I was having to argue with someone about something every single time I logged in. When I attempted to change things - while being told repeatedly that I was taking a completely wrong approach by going direct and head-on with what I saw as the main problem - I found myself largely alone. Although people would agree with what I was doing, and thank me privately, it looked to me like a division between cowards and bullies as they wouldn't say so publicly. It was made out that I was just some sort of moralistic nut with a bizarre and unfounded animosity for one poster. A well-liked poster, who got to have lots of people defending him. The more I tried to explain how things were and what was going on - the worse the whole groupie attitude got. I am not a politician. I suck at getting mass support and approval. And it's not something I want anyway. But, if you're trying to change how things are - you don't do well if the followers like how things are, the independents don't say anything, and there are no leaders. I decided to leave them on their own. (ha ha, okay that does sound arrogant!! ) See how things go, and I'd check back in a couple months to see if anything at all had changed. I think talking about socionics and stuff is fun, but all the stupid crap to deal with, the petty fights, the cliques, all that really dumb junior-highlike junk is not for me. It's incredibly frustrating that I wasn't able to do anything, but my effort is better spent other places, places where I can actually move forward through effort, and get somewhere, not where I'm pushing against a wall in a dark room. What's the point? If most people like how it is, let 'em have it.

As for the question about dual type relationship with Expat -- I think we understand each other. However, I also think that people like anndelise understand me also. I don't know how to determine what a dual type relationship would be - either people get me or they don't, and so far it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with type. However, I don't see any reason why Expat wouldn't be an ENTj. ESTjs should be stronger in both Si and Se than ENTjs, and neither of those functions seems strong in Expat. I know there's different ideas, but I don't see Si as someone being lost and awkward-seeming, more like the opposite. Someone who is Si ego I would expect to be more comfortable with themselves, smoother, less awkward, relaxed and grounded-seeming. I'd suggest INTp before ESTj for Expat.

I get along with all the NFs - with a few exceptions, both betas and deltas. Hardest to see eye-to-eye with IRL, have been a couple alpha SFs, an ENTp and a something, don't know what -- but that had to do with the fact that they were slimy weasle-like people to whom honesty and forthrightness were cryptonite, and not to do with type.

[Ajax]

eunice, on Sep 13 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

I feel that Ashton gave a rather accurate descriptions for both subtypes. I haven't really read an INFj description which can be applied to both subtypes. In fact, they seem to be describing more about the Fi subtype. Btw, I'm a Ne subtype.

Some general differences between INFj-Fi and INFj-Ne which I have observed:

INFj-Fi
INFj-Fi tend to resemble ISFj. They are more serious, disciplined and business-like. They are the ones who excel academically and tend to choose practical or professional courses in school. They are very focused and have a clear idea of what they want in life, so they tend not to deviate from the long-term goals they have set. They tend to keep their opinions to themselves so as to avoid conflict. They look gentle and sophisticated and they dress well, often adhering to a classical style. INFj-Fi believe in lifelong learning, but they will spend their time and effort on something relevant eg. career-related. In this area, they tend to dispense less energy than INFj-Ne, who is more scattered and enthusiastic about anything which excites them at the moment. INFj-Fi can be quietly critical of others who don't match up to their standard of morality. INFj-Fi are more confident of their Si ability eg. sports, housework.

Yeah I think Ashton's description was pretty good as well, the descriptions which I was saying I did not think were accurate or clear for INFjs are the ones written by more formal socionists like filatova, gulenko etc.

I know a lot of people think that some INFjs seem to resemble ISFjs in some ways but I think I have more trouble separating INFjs from INTjs for some reason.

[Ajax]

Diana, on Sep 13 2007, 06:22 PM, said:

It wasn't just one person, and it's not avoidance and withdrawal. Basically there's a schoolyard mentality - a couple bullies, their groupies, a lame admin who has no idea how to handle anything, the kids who get picked on or try to stir things up, and the rest who don't really care. It got to the point where I was having to argue with someone about something every single time I logged in. When I attempted to change things - while being told repeatedly that I was taking a completely wrong approach by going direct and head-on with what I saw as the main problem - I found myself largely alone. Although people would agree with what I was doing, and thank me privately, it looked to me like a division between cowards and bullies as they wouldn't say so publicly. It was made out that I was just some sort of moralistic nut with a bizarre and unfounded animosity for one poster. A well-liked poster, who got to have lots of people defending him. The more I tried to explain how things were and what was going on - the worse the whole groupie attitude got. I am not a politician. I suck at getting mass support and approval. And it's not something I want anyway. But, if you're trying to change how things are - you don't do well if the followers like how things are, the independents don't say anything, and there are no leaders. I decided to leave them on their own. (ha ha, okay that does sound arrogant!! ) See how things go, and I'd check back in a couple months to see if anything at all had changed. I think talking about socionics and stuff is fun, but all the stupid crap to deal with, the petty fights, the cliques, all that really dumb junior-highlike junk is not for me. It's incredibly frustrating that I wasn't able to do anything, but my effort is better spent other places, places where I can actually move forward through effort, and get somewhere, not where I'm pushing against a wall in a dark room. What's the point? If most people like how it is, let 'em have it.

I felt the same way about things over there too. In the end I just concluded that it was a place for bullies and cliques. Funny how betas always get the wrap for being "cliquey" but there are no beta cliques there...yet another stupid beta stereotype I guess.
I feel like i am groping around in the dark with regards to your type but what you wrote above sounds Fe/intuitive, like you see the dynamics and motivations that are not that obvious to others and so you end up seeming overly reactive when you pick up on some abstract thing that a lot of other people are not that able to see.

Quote

As for the question about dual type relationship with Expat -- I think we understand each other. However, I also think that people like anndelise understand me also. I don't know how to determine what a dual type relationship would be - either people get me or they don't, and so far it doesn't seem to have a lot to do with type. However, I don't see any reason why Expat wouldn't be an ENTj. ESTjs should be stronger in both Si and Se than ENTjs, and neither of those functions seems strong in Expat. I know there's different ideas, but I don't see Si as someone being lost and awkward-seeming, more like the opposite. Someone who is Si ego I would expect to be more comfortable with themselves, smoother, less awkward, relaxed and grounded-seeming. I'd suggest INTp before ESTj for Expat.

It does seem strange that ENTjs do not seem to identify much with him. He also has extremely bad relations with betas, far worst that anyone else claiming to be gamma. On the question of Si, I think it is very hard to see that function over the internet. I have no idea what type Expat is but I would bet a lot based on his posts and general atitude that he is from an Ne/Si quadra. There are also ESTjs that seem to have especially strong Ne and that often kind of neutralize their Si a bit and make them seem nerdy, awkward and almost intuitive. You have to communicate with them for a while to start suspecting that they are ESTjs.

[Ashton]

Diana, on Sep 13 2007, 12:22 PM, said:

However, I don't see any reason why Expat wouldn't be an ENTj. ESTjs should be stronger in both Si and Se than ENTjs, and neither of those functions seems strong in Expat. I know there's different ideas, but I don't see Si as someone being lost and awkward-seeming, more like the opposite. Someone who is Si ego I would expect to be more comfortable with themselves, smoother, less awkward, relaxed and grounded-seeming. I'd suggest INTp before ESTj for Expat.

He doesn't demonstrate any or valuing whatsoever, plus he hates Betas. Sorry, but no one who values / is going to detest Betas as much as Expat does. He does demonstrate clear and valuing, as well as and . He gets along with Deltas too well for this to be a coincidence.

ESTjs don't have "stronger ," that makes no sense. will be strong in ENTjs, since it's a valued function, whereas Expat is completely and utterly averse to in a way that any Gamma *never* would be. He wouldn't last 5 minutes with an ISFj.... heh, not to mention that an ISFj would find him repulsive. For a variety of reasons...

I didn't say means someone being lost/awkward, but it doesn't preclude it either. Nor do I think it says anything about being more relaxed and grounded-seeming... though that can often be an aim of , at least a certain style of it. From what I remember, he does enjoy recreational activities that are more -oriented.

INTp for Expat? God no - that's even worse than suggesting ENTj. Expat is like kryptonite to an INTp.

[Ashton]

Lululinda, on Sep 13 2007, 07:24 PM, said:

I feel like i am groping around in the dark with regards to your type but what you wrote above sounds Fe/intuitive, like you see the dynamics and motivations that are not that obvious to others and so you end up seeming overly reactive when you pick up on some abstract thing that a lot of other people are not that able to see.

Diana is good at picking that stuff up, I agree. I think that can be a quality of either focused or focused .

Quote

It does seem strange that ENTjs do not seem to identify much with him. He also has extremely bad relations with betas, far worst that anyone else claiming to be gamma. On the question of Si, I think it is very hard to see that function over the internet. I have no idea what type Expat is but I would bet a lot based on his posts and general atitude that he is from an Ne/Si quadra. There are also ESTjs that seem to have especially strong Ne and that often kind of neutralize their Si a bit and make them seem nerdy, awkward and almost intuitive. You have to communicate with them for a while to start suspecting that they are ESTjs.

Yeah, is not the easiest thing to pick up over the internet, I agree. But it does reflect in general attitudes, outlooks, motivations, etc. And if someone talks about those things in regards to themselves, you can start to see it. Same goes for any other valued function.

vs. differences are very clear in body language. I've studied this a lot. The way someone moves, their posture, the way they hold themselves... these are all strong indicators of vs. preferences, it's all illustrated potently well. If people think I am full of shit about this... then well, I guess body language must not even exist and all those other people must be wrong about it. Anyway, I've seen Expat on video and he's clear , and I don't say that because he's awkward-seeming (I mention that because ENTjs typically aren't). It's because of a lot of subtleties about his body language as a whole. shows up in Diana's videos too that I saw once. Maybe I can provide some examples of what I mean using some footage of some public figures.

The is strong in Expat in the particular way he professes correlations between this and that as "proof" of whatever point he's trying to make.

[Diana]

Ashton, on Sep 14 2007, 08:20 PM, said:

He doesn't demonstrate any or valuing whatsoever, plus he hates Betas. Sorry, but no one who values / is going to detest Betas as much as Expat does. He does demonstrate clear and valuing, as well as and . He gets along with Deltas too well for this to be a coincidence.

ESTjs don't have "stronger ," that makes no sense. will be strong in ENTjs, since it's a valued function, whereas Expat is completely and utterly averse to in a way that any Gamma *never* would be. He wouldn't last 5 minutes with an ISFj.... heh, not to mention that an ISFj would find him repulsive. For a variety of reasons...

I didn't say means someone being lost/awkward, but it doesn't preclude it either. Nor do I think it says anything about being more relaxed and grounded-seeming... though that can often be an aim of , at least a certain style of it. From what I remember, he does enjoy recreational activities that are more -oriented.

INTp for Expat? God no - that's even worse than suggesting ENTj. Expat is like kryptonite to an INTp.

In Model A -- Se is a strong and unconscious function for ESTj, right? So, this means they don't care about it, but don't really have any issues with it. For ENTjs Se is valued yes, but that doesn't mean they're good at it. Like ENFjs - they're not wimpy right - and neither are INFps but they're looking for Se from their dual, not providing it. So although ESTjs should be better at Se than ENTjs, they just don't care about it. It's like. . . think of ENFps - creative Fi right, like ESTjs have creative Si. And ENFps don't have any problem with Fe imo, even though it's not a valued function. Also ESFps - they don't care about Fe but they have no problems with it. I mean imagine a ESxj - INxj pair, if they both suck at Se, man they're worse off together than they would be alone. Or a ExFp - IxTp pair, if ExFps were worse than ExTps at Fe - again, the pair would probably be worse together than apart. Supposedly the duals should work in tandem, so the two together are better off and stronger than the sum of each- in theory anyway. But neither ExTj is appealing to me romantically.

[Diana]

Ashton, on Sep 14 2007, 09:11 PM, said:

Diana is good at picking that stuff up, I agree. I think that can be a quality of either focused or focused .
Yeah, is not the easiest thing to pick up over the internet, I agree. But it does reflect in general attitudes, outlooks, motivations, etc. And if someone talks about those things in regards to themselves, you can start to see it. Same goes for any other valued function.

vs. differences are very clear in body language. I've studied this a lot. The way someone moves, their posture, the way they hold themselves... these are all strong indicators of vs. preferences, it's all illustrated potently well. If people think I am full of shit about this... then well, I guess body language must not even exist and all those other people must be wrong about it. Anyway, I've seen Expat on video and he's clear , and I don't say that because he's awkward-seeming (I mention that because ENTjs typically aren't). It's because of a lot of subtleties about his body language as a whole. shows up in Diana's videos too that I saw once. Maybe I can provide some examples of what I mean using some footage of some public figures.

The is strong in Expat in the particular way he professes correlations between this and that as "proof" of whatever point he's trying to make.

I agree that Si vs. Se can be seen in body language. You do have to take into account whether they're trying to project a particular image or not though. Comparing footage would be useful.

[Ajax]

Diana, on Sep 15 2007, 04:42 AM, said:

In Model A -- Se is a strong and unconscious function for ESTj, right? So, this means they don't care about it, but don't really have any issues with it. For ENTjs Se is valued yes, but that doesn't mean they're good at it. Like ENFjs - they're not wimpy right - and neither are INFps but they're looking for Se from their dual, not providing it. So although ESTjs should be better at Se than ENTjs, they just don't care about it. It's like. . . think of ENFps - creative Fi right, like ESTjs have creative Si. And ENFps don't have any problem with Fe imo, even though it's not a valued function. Also ESFps - they don't care about Fe but they have no problems with it. I mean imagine a ESxj - INxj pair, if they both suck at Se, man they're worse off together than they would be alone. Or a ExFp - IxTp pair, if ExFps were worse than ExTps at Fe - again, the pair would probably be worse together than apart. Supposedly the duals should work in tandem, so the two together are better off and stronger than the sum of each- in theory anyway. But neither ExTj is appealing to me romantically.

You have made some sound points there. Which type is appealing to you romantically?

[Ajax]

Ashton, on Sep 15 2007, 03:20 AM, said:

ESTjs don't have "stronger ," that makes no sense. .

Why exactly does it not make sense that ESTjs would have strong Se? It is their 8th function (function of "concrete art")which is also used actively and creatively unlike even the 7th.

[Ashton]

Diana, on Sep 14 2007, 10:42 PM, said:

In Model A -- Se is a strong and unconscious function for ESTj, right? So, this means they don't care about it, but don't really have any issues with it. For ENTjs Se is valued yes, but that doesn't mean they're good at it. Like ENFjs - they're not wimpy right - and neither are INFps but they're looking for Se from their dual, not providing it. So although ESTjs should be better at Se than ENTjs, they just don't care about it. It's like. . . think of ENFps - creative Fi right, like ESTjs have creative Si. And ENFps don't have any problem with Fe imo, even though it's not a valued function. Also ESFps - they don't care about Fe but they have no problems with it. I mean imagine a ESxj - INxj pair, if they both suck at Se, man they're worse off together than they would be alone. Or a ExFp - IxTp pair, if ExFps were worse than ExTps at Fe - again, the pair would probably be worse together than apart. Supposedly the duals should work in tandem, so the two together are better off and stronger than the sum of each- in theory anyway. But neither ExTj is appealing to me romantically.

Yeah, I know that's how Model A portrays it, I've read all that before. It's all awfully convoluted though IMO and I've yet to actually observe any of it. I haven't met any ENTjs or ENFjs yet who sucked at . I haven't met any ESTjs yet who were good at . Never knew an ENFp or ESFp who didn't have a problem with ... if they did, why do so many of them bitch about it?

I don't regard dual relationships as being necessary to "provide" anything. IMO each person of any type is quite good/adept/capable at their four quadra-specific functions (for instance, there is nothing at all weak/deficient about your ). So a dual-pairing is just a harmonious matching of strengths+preferences that are pretty much equally present in both individuals.

I don't like Model A because it lacks parsimony - I think the reality of all this is much simpler than is portrayed in Model A. And it's portrayed some things inaccurately. So I can't regard it as a valid framework for explaining this stuff.

[Ajax]

Ashton, on Sep 15 2007, 05:32 AM, said:

Yeah, I know that's how Model A portrays it, I've read all that before. It's all awfully convoluted though IMO and I've yet to actually observe any of it. I haven't met any ENTjs or ENFjs yet who sucked at . I haven't met any ESTjs yet who were good at . Never knew an ENFp or ESFp who didn't have a problem with ... if they did, why do so many of them bitch about it?

I don't regard dual relationships as being necessary to "provide" anything. IMO each person of any type is quite good/adept/capable at their four quadra-specific functions (for instance, there is nothing at all weak/deficient about your ). So a dual-pairing is just a harmonious matching of strengths+preferences that are pretty much equally present in both individuals.

I don't like Model A because it lacks parsimony - I think the reality of all this is much simpler than is portrayed in Model A. And it's portrayed some things inaccurately. So I can't regard it as a valid framework for explaining this stuff.

classical vs reality based socionics?

Ashton, I wonder exactly how you see and define ? Same question to Diana also.

[Ashton]

Lululinda, on Sep 14 2007, 11:10 PM, said:

Why exactly does it not make sense that ESTjs would have strong Se? It is their 8th function (function of "concrete art")which is also used actively and creatively unlike even the 7th.

In Model A it's their 8th function and supposedly the 8th function is "strong." Now I don't know if the Russians meant the word "strong" in the same way we think of the word strong... it could mean something else. But assuming that is what it means, then... the reason it doesn't make sense, is because I haven't seen it. I don't like Model A because it doesn't confirm reality very well, so I don't use it. And there's a lot of other models out there besides A that different Russian Socionists have come up with, so it's not just me seeing problems with Model A apparently. Whether some of theirs are more right or wrong, I dunno. Information on that is hard to find in English, it'd be interesting to look into. But I don't work off models too much, it's too restrictive... there's too much yet to be seen before I'm willing to plot anything down definitively and obey a structure. Not that a structure doesn't exist to all of this, I'm certain it does, I just don't think anyone's seen it yet. So I just go with what I can see and experience directly and keep developing a working understanding of all of this. And then at some point the real structure will emerge.

The weaknesses in Te-ESTjs are more apparent. The Si-ESTjs are better at it, I'm not sure why completely, but the divide is interesting. I think it could have something to do with perceiver-subtypes naturally being more attuned to perceiving functions in general in some way.

[Ashton]

Lululinda, on Sep 14 2007, 11:44 PM, said:

classical vs reality based socionics?

Lol, I dunno what you'd call it. I just think we should expect our models to accurately reflect reality. If they don't, they should be ditched. Why stick to something that doesn't work?

Quote

Ashton, I wonder exactly how you see and define ? Same question to Diana also.

Ah yeah. I've been meaning to write a response in Herzy's thread. Writing posts and stuff is difficult for me, so I haven't gotten around to it. What she wrote there is parallel to my own experiences, with some slight differences.

Watch how an animal on the hunt acts and it might give you some idea of how I see it.

[Diana]

Lululinda, on Sep 14 2007, 10:44 PM, said:

classical vs reality based socionics?

Ashton, I wonder exactly how you see and define ? Same question to Diana also.

In a word - power.

Willpower, solidity, initiative, movement. Shows up differently in ESFps than ESTps due to FiTe and FeTi, but it's the same force. Creative Se has different emphasis with Ti or Fi obviously. Se = driving forward, vs. Si = floating or carried forward.

What it's not is bullying, acting tough, posturing - though those can show up in a Se type, or even a Se role ie ENTps.

[Mea.]

I can't remember my log in name for my original account here.

Anyway. Ashton, you said you don't see Expat value Ni, and he's ESTj.
So perhaps you could point out that he values Si?

[Ajax]

Ashton, on Sep 15 2007, 05:32 AM, said:

Never knew an ENFp or ESFp who didn't have a problem with ... if they did, why do so many of them bitch about it?

Really? What are the specific problems they have voiced with using ? I think my is even shittier than that of some ENTps for some reason.

[Ajax]

Diana, on Sep 15 2007, 06:28 AM, said:

In a word - power.

Willpower, solidity, initiative, movement. Shows up differently in ESFps than ESTps due to FiTe and FeTi, but it's the same force. Creative Se has different emphasis with Ti or Fi obviously. Se = driving forward, vs. Si = floating or carried forward.

What it's not is bullying, acting tough, posturing - though those can show up in a Se type, or even a Se role ie ENTps.

Ashton, on Sep 15 2007, 06:06 AM, said:

Watch how an animal on the hunt acts and it might give you some idea of how I see it.

Like: desire->initiative->activity->observation->determination->pursuit->persistence->capture->possess->kill.

You and Diana seem to be on the same page as far as is concerned. Maybe Diana can point out an instance where she has noted this in Expat. Oh, and Diana, which type are you usually into romantically? You remind me so much of Kim sometimes. Kim.

[Diana]

Lululinda, on Sep 15 2007, 06:00 PM, said:

Like: desire->initiative->activity->observation->determination->pursuit->persistence->capture->possess->kill.

You and Diana seem to be on the same page as far as is concerned. Maybe Diana can point out an instance where she has noted this in Expat. Oh, and Diana, which type are you usually into romantically? You remind me so much of Kim sometimes. Kim.

I haven't seen that in Expat, so I can't point out an instance.

As for the type I'm into romantically - I'll know when I meet him . What reminds you of Kim about me?