Red Memories
Haunted Echoes
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2017
- Messages
- 6,280
- MBTI Type
- ESFP
- Enneagram
- 215
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/so
And I wanted to grow an ESFP cult . . .
Now that I will not go with you are no ESFP
And I wanted to grow an ESFP cult . . .
I'll take you
INTP 9w8 5w6 3w2 Sp/Sx
not an ENFP and i don't even think ENFPs can be 1s! i'm unsure of your Fi usage but it's possible
I have seen you as ENTP ever since you came to the forum. My original reasoning involved the way you presented your case in serious threads (more seeking of logical consistency), and the way you would joke and banter in the lighthearted threads (very divergent, Ne-style humor but with an edge to it that ENFP usually lacks). Your presentation in the past year or so has come across as much softer and more tentative, but I have the impression that that is more in response to RL perturbations rather than something innate. Your approach to problems and questions lacks the external, fact-focus of Te, which suggests the T you use is Ti. Your interaction style has always reflected an awareness of group dynamics more indicative of Fe over Fi. This distinction is muddied by the more introspective turn your presentation (and perhaps your actual thoughts/life) has taken, but not enough to make me willing to switch them. So, if you use Ti and Fe and Ne, _NTP is the only choice, and I don't think you are I.(I have a question of my own whats the odds of ENFP vs ENPT for me).
I have seen you as ENTP ever since you came to the forum. My original reasoning involved the way you presented your case in serious threads (more seeking of logical consistency), and the way you would joke and banter in the lighthearted threads (very divergent, Ne-style humor but with an edge to it that ENFP usually lacks). Your presentation in the past year or so has come across as much softer and more tentative, but I have the impression that that is more in response to RL perturbations rather than something innate. Your approach to problems and questions lacks the external, fact-focus of Te, which suggests the T you use is Ti. Your interaction style has always reflected an awareness of group dynamics more indicative of Fe over Fi. This distinction is muddied by the more introspective turn your presentation (and perhaps your actual thoughts/life) has taken, but not enough to make me willing to switch them. So, if you use Ti and Fe and Ne, _NTP is the only choice, and I don't think you are I.
What I find rather interesting (even despite I am combining MBTI and the Enneagram by doing this) are SO-doms with Fi in their stacking (or at least that's what they claim to be). This for some reason does not make sense to me at all.
Why couldn't a Fi dom be an so dom? It would mean they focus on connecting with others and participating/contributing and reading others. There's nothing necessarily ingruent there. It could come out as putting one's values into action in the social realm.
ENFPs and 1 are compatible
Schrödinger's Name said:What excludes an ENFP from being an E1?
They are Fi users and Fi users are rather known for having their own inner world and (strong) values as E1's do (relating to the values).
Jung said:We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.
In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.
If tolerance for the sick, the suffering, or the deranged should chance to be an ingredient in the formula, special provisions will be devised for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, colonies, etc., or at least extensive plans for such projects. For the actual execution of these schemes the [p. 436] motives of justice and truth do not, as a rule, suffice; still devolve upon real Christian charity, which I to do with feeling than with any intellectual 'One really should' or I one must' figure largely in this programme. If the formula is wide enough, it may play a very useful rôle in social life, with a reformer or a ventilator of public wrongs or a purifier of the public conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more, does he develop into a grumbler, a crafty reasoner, and a self-righteous critic, who would like to impress both himself and others into one schema.
(...)
There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means.
This is a completely different discussion, but 'objectively' measuring what's 'good and evil', 'beauty and ugliness'? Though the 'valid ideas' already says enough. What makes an idea 'valid' after all? You can merely get a consensus on that but it'll never be 100% objective.always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined.
How reliable are those statistics? How do the people who gathered the information to make those statistics know for sure that those people are accurately typed? It's not possible to prove that.But statistics says that most E1's (something like 70-90%) are thinkers, and not feelers!
This is a completely different discussion, but 'objectively' measuring what's 'good and evil', 'beauty and ugliness'? Though the 'valid ideas' already says enough. What makes an idea 'valid' after all? You can merely get a consensus on that but it'll never be 100% objective.
How reliable are those statistics? How do the people who gathered the information to make those statistics know for sure that those people are accurately typed? It's not possible to prove that.
Sure, everyone would like to claim that their values and principles are backed up by/based upon high 'objective' research and facts. That doesn't mean that that's always the case.
Even if those statistics are 'right' there's still room for 30%-10% E1's that are not thinkers.
Let's play whack-a-mole. Take a whack at me.![]()
I think you're onto something but have you considered how much I like looking at myself in the mirror?[MENTION=266]Lateralus[/MENTION]
I think you're an INTJ. your posts display much more Fi than I've seen in any ENTJ I can think of. also, you don't quite come across as a core 3 to me. I could buy 5w6, 1w9 or 6w5 for you.