Personality Cafe banner

Se - Te loop vs Te - Se loop

7K views 40 replies 6 participants last post by  brightflashes 
#1 ·
Can someone explain to me the difference between these two loops. Yeah it's the same two functions but one of them would be predominant for ESFP and the other for ENTJ.

How would an ENTJ stuck in Te - Se loop differ from an ESFP stuck in Se - Te loop ??

What are the similarities and what are the differences ??
 
#2 ·
I think you should try to find any credibility that supports the idea of loops in the first instance. I have not found any. I can see that they were kind of created here on PerC in 2010 but they are all attributed to various mental disorders and I do not know if the author of the post is qualified enough to do that with any credibility.

There is also the problem of the orientation of the tertiary function which according to the MBTI manual and also following Jungs theories is actually in opposite direction to the dominant function so the loop theory is inconsistent with MBTI. The loop theory is fake for these reasons and more.

In my opinion Te-Se denotes an ordinary ESTJ* and Se-Te denotes an ordinary ESTP* because it shows the preferred attitude is Extroversion and I think the preferred attitude fades from E to I in E types as the functions drop in consciousness levels so it would look like Te-Se-Ni-Fi for the ESTJ, where Se is mostly conscious but still a little unconscious, and Ni is mostly conscious but still a little conscious. Te is most conscious and Fi is most unconscious obviously. This is just how I see it. I do not think that preferring Thinking over Feeling (therefore "Te" over "Se") means you are somehow really a Feeling type and have an auxiliary "Fi". If you prefer T, you are a T in my opinion. To believe in the "loop" theory you have to agree with a lot of things that are inconsistent and do not make any sense.

The Te-Se/Se-Te paragraph from the link I provided earlier is this:

ESFP/ENTJ: Se/Te or Te/Se--Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (not the same thing as OCD)! I've seen people mistake ESFPs in Se+Te dom-tert loops for ESTPs because they can be so insistent upon controlling their surroundings. These types epitomize enneagram type 8, as they are aggressive, blunt, confrontational and not the least bit afraid of hurting anyone's feelings. Inside they require the approval of others to a much higher degree than they let on, as Te insists on controlling and organizing external surroundings to ridiculous proportions, while Se pushes any naysayers out of the way with aggressive force and a take-no-prisoners attitude. Territorial and looking for any reason to display their power, these types are some of the most difficult to deal with of all dom-tert loops. If Fi/Ni were doing its job, these types would stop to consider that their actions have negative implications for others, and that aggressively taking charge is not always the best solution in every situation.
I have some questions:
- What proof is there that someone preferring "Te/Se" or "Se/Te" has OCPD?
- Where is the support for "Te/Se" or "Se/Te" preferring Type 8 Enneagram?
- Why is there an assumption that they require approval of others internally more than they let on?
- Why is "Fi/Ni" attributed to considering the effects your actions have on others?

For some background on OCPD this has some information regarding the signs for diagnosis. It seems to work in theory for an MBTI xSTJ (Te/Si or Si/Te) taken too far (Hyperfocus on details. Forgets the point/big picture. Extreme devotion to production, perfection and work. Rigid and stubborn). I am not a psychologist so dismiss this if you would like.

I am just trying to say that I think the "loops" are nonsense for a variety of reasons.
 
#4 ·
I think you should try to find any credibility that supports the idea of loops in the first instance. I have not found any. I can see that they were kind of created here on PerC in 2010 but they are all attributed to various mental disorders and I do not know if the author of the post is qualified enough to do that with any credibility.

There is also the problem of the orientation of the tertiary function which according to the MBTI manual and also following Jungs theories is actually in opposite direction to the dominant function so the loop theory is inconsistent with MBTI. The loop theory is fake for these reasons and more.

In my opinion Te-Se denotes an ordinary ESTJ* and Se-Te denotes an ordinary ESTP* because it shows the preferred attitude is Extroversion and I think the preferred attitude fades from E to I in E types as the functions drop in consciousness levels so it would look like Te-Se-Ni-Fi for the ESTJ, where Se is mostly conscious but still a little unconscious, and Ni is mostly conscious but still a little conscious. Te is most conscious and Fi is most unconscious obviously. This is just how I see it. I do not think that preferring Thinking over Feeling (therefore "Te" over "Se") means you are somehow really a Feeling type and have an auxiliary "Fi". If you prefer T, you are a T in my opinion. To believe in the "loop" theory you have to agree with a lot of things that are inconsistent and do not make any sense.

The Te-Se/Se-Te paragraph from the link I provided earlier is this:



I have some questions:
- What proof is there that someone preferring "Te/Se" or "Se/Te" has OCPD?
- Where is the support for "Te/Se" or "Se/Te" preferring Type 8 Enneagram?
- Why is there an assumption that they require approval of others internally more than they let on?
- Why is "Fi/Ni" attributed to considering the effects your actions have on others?

For some background on OCPD this has some information regarding the signs for diagnosis. It seems to work in theory for an MBTI xSTJ (Te/Si or Si/Te) taken too far (Hyperfocus on details. Forgets the point/big picture. Extreme devotion to production, perfection and work. Rigid and stubborn). I am not a psychologist so dismiss this if you would like.

I am just trying to say that I think the "loops" are nonsense for a variety of reasons.





I definitely believe that there is something in the loop theory. I've seen it play out with other types plenty of times before. I've observed it plenty in people. I'm just curious how Se - Te and Te - Se is different.
 
#6 ·
How do you know? What have you observed? Did you type these people?

I've seen people act in accordance with there functions in the way that they are described. In other words, ENFJs for example acting out in a Fe - Se style of extroversion. It's not that complicated really. You just have to study up on the functions and then you can see the way it manifests itself when put together in a loop. Although it's harder to do it with the introverts I think for obvious reasons.



Did you consider possible explanations outside of personality-theory or "loops" to explain the behaviour or whatever else it was that you think you observed?

Sure, you have to consider all possibilities. But then you come to a conclusion based on all the reading you've done of MBTI and the functions and also previous experience interacting with people.



The very idea of a "loop" does not work well with many peoples understandings of Jungs theories (which means the first two functions are in the same attitude and so are the last two for example Se-Te-Fi-Ni) and it does not work with the understanding in the MBTI manual (this would be Se-Ti-Fi-Ni). The idea of this theory is flawed and its feet do not even leave the ground it is built on a false and not valid understanding of the function theory. It is interesting to theorise on of course but it does not work. It is not real. It is inconsistent with Jungs and Myers. What do you think the "something" is in this loop theory I wonder?

It does work and it makes complete sense. The thing you have to take into account is that within each type there is a more introverted subtype and a more extroverted subtype. In other words, a more Extroverted ISTP for example, is going to focus more on Ti - Se as apposed to a more introverted ISTP who is going to be more focused on Ti - Ni and not use Se as much as Ni even though it is higher up on their function stacking order. Hence loop theory. Every type has it.


Let's use famous people as examples. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an INTJ who focuses more on Ni - Te. He has a vision (which is Ni) and then he works very hard to make that vision turn into a reality (That's Te). As apposed to an INTJ like George Lucas who is more introspective (Ni - Fi loop).


Like I said, I'm certain that loop theory is real and you can observe it in people all the time and I do. But anyways that's not even what I'm interested in talking about.


The purpose of this thread is to identify the differences between Se - Te loop vs Te - Se loop.


ESFP/ENTJ: Se/Te or Te/Se--Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (not the same thing as OCD)! I've seen people mistake ESFPs in Se+Te dom-tert loops for ESTPs because they can be so insistent upon controlling their surroundings. These types epitomize enneagram type 8, as they are aggressive, blunt, confrontational and not the least bit afraid of hurting anyone's feelings. Inside they require the approval of others to a much higher degree than they let on, as Te insists on controlling and organizing external surroundings to ridiculous proportions, while Se pushes any naysayers out of the way with aggressive force and a take-no-prisoners attitude. Territorial and looking for any reason to display their power, these types are some of the most difficult to deal with of all dom-tert loops. If Fi/Ni were doing its job, these types would stop to consider that their actions have negative implications for others, and that aggressively taking charge is not always the best solution in every situation.


Thank you for this. I think this is a good and accurate description of the loop and how it manifests itself together. But it still doesn't answer my question.


What I'm curious about is how Dominant Se with tertiary Te is different from Dominant Te from tertiary Se. It's the subtle difference I'm interested in.
 
#7 ·
I realize this isn't the answer you're looking for, but believe it or not, the biggest thing that Se-Te loops and Te-Se loops have in common is that neither one exists.

The dom-tert loop notion is based on the Harold Grant function stack, which says that the E/I attitude of your functions alternates, so you're either EIEI or IEIE. And further, the theory goes, your auxiliary function provides important E/I balance to your dominant function, assuming you use your aux in its rightful role as second-in-command.

But, the theory goes, an introvert naturally prefers introversion to extraversion, and sometimes this results in them neglecting their extraverted aux, and instead using their introverted tertiary function as the second-in-command, with the result that — oh noes! — they get stuck in a totally introverted loop between those two introverted functions, and neglect the extraverted side of things, with unhealthy results. (And likewise in reverse if an extravert neglects their introverted aux and uses their extraverted tert in its place.)

So... it follows from this that the dom-tert loop concept falls apart if the Harold Grant function stack is a steaming pile of donkey dookie. And as it turns out, the Harold Grant function stack, besides being inconsistent with both Jung and Myers, and besides never having been endorsed by the official MBTI folks, is also a steaming pile of donkey dookie. (For more on that, see the posts linked here.)

For more on the loopy history of the dom-tert loop, see this post.

Another author who uses this concept is Naomi L. Quen who talks abt it in her book "Was that really me".
This is incorrect. As already noted, the notion of dom-tert loops is a byproduct of the Harold Grant function stack — where the loop happens precisely because the dom and tert functions (supposedly) have the same E/I attitude, while the auxiliary's attitude is the opposite — and Quenk, to her credit, doesn't subscribe to that stack, and makes no mention of dom-tert loops in Was That Really Me?
 
#8 ·
There is no such thing as "loops". It's a ridiculous thing. Someone who is more extraverted will exhibit functions in the extraverted attitude and repress functions in the introverted attitude. the more "lopsided" or out-of-balance introverted to extraverted functions are is in no way equated with neurosis, psychosis, or any version of mentally disturbed or disordered status.

Jung, who came up with the functions and attitudes actually believed the personality gravitated towards either etraversion or introversion and the top two functions were in the same attitude - the one preferred. Many of his theories of personality began (though did not expand in this way) with the study of his patients who ranged from slightly troubled to profoundly disconnected from reality even by today's standards. If there was ever a question of whether or not it was dangerous to use two functions in the same attitude (ie, looping), he would have written about this with the same urgency that he wrote about the transcendent function and active imagination which can both be very dangerous if one doesn't know what they are doing.

In other words, loop "theory" (if it even can be called a theory) is complete trash and has zero influence on psychiatric wellbeing, functionality, or one's ability to socialise or know ones' self.

Also, I agree with everything @Dissymetry and @reckful (who also appear to be classically trained in psychology) said as well. Just because someone with a PhD wrote it in a book doesn't make it scientific, true, or anything meaningful. It's just words. One has to know the actual theory of personality - at least typology at the very basic level - inside and out to be able to see how ridiculous "looping" is.
 
#10 · (Edited)
All these INTJs trying to convince themselves that Se - Te loops aren't a thing because they are envious of it and it's what they wish they had more of in their lives. INTJs tend to be quite ambitious and in their Ni - Fi loops tend to imagine themselves achieving big accomplishments.

But because of a lack of will power and also due to the fact that they often don't go for what they want because they think that it's logically impossible for them to achieve what they want to they often don't live up to their own high ideal of themselves.

Se - Te loops are a real thing. How do I know ?? Because I spend a large proportion of my life in that state. Working hard, getting things done, controlling my life and making it go the way I want to. Unhealthy INTJs wish that they were more like this and are jealous of this trait.

When you tell an unhealthy INTJ that ESFPs have this thing called Se - Te loops which can make them very hard workers and can often result in them achieving big, what do they do ??? They go in their minds and try to rationalise why it's not true.

Se reality is sometimes too much for them so to protect their own ego they rationalise and invent entire theories as to why this Se reality is not true.

Dear Unhealthy INTJs. Please stop wasting my fucking time with your delusions and lack of comfortableness with facts and reality.

Yes !! When ESFPs get into Se - Te loops they have potential for achieving big. That's a fact. It's why there's quite a few really successful and rich ESFP entrepreneurs around. Fact. DEAL WITH IT !!!. Or, retreat into your minds and try to rationalise why it's not true because you're envious of it and wish that you were more like this.
 
#11 ·
All these INTJs trying to convince themselves that Se - Te loops aren't a thing because they are envious of it and it's what they wish they had more of in their lives. INTJs tend to be quite ambitious and in their Ni - Fi loops tend to imagine themselves achieving big accomplishments.

But because of a lack of will power and also due to the fact that they often don't go for what they want because they think that it's logically impossible for them to achieve what they want to they often don't live up to their own high ideal of themselves.

Se - Te loops are a real thing. How do I know ?? Because I spend a large proportion of my life in that state. Working hard, getting things done, controlling my life and making it go the way I want to. Unhealthy INTJs wish that they were more like this and are jealous of this trait.

When you tell an unhealthy INTJ that ESFPs have this thing called Se - Te loops which can make them very hard workers and can often result in them achieving big, what do they do ??? They go in their minds and try to rationalise why it's not true.

Se reality is sometimes too much for them so to protect their own ego they rationalise and invent entire theories as to why this Se reality is not true.

Dear Unhealthy INTJs. Please stop wasting my fucking time with your delusions and lack of comfortableness with facts and reality.

Yes !! When ESFPs get into Se - Te loops they have potential for achieving big. That's a fact. It's why there's quite a few really successful and rich ESFP entrepreneurs around. FACT. DEAL WITH IT !!!. Or, retreat into your minds and try to rationalise why it's not true because you're envious of it and wish that you were more like this.
lol
 
#12 ·
@Hicks

I honestly was not out to waste your time. I find it disturbing that you are saying I'm delusional or that I have some sort of problem with, I guess, maybe motivation or "getting stuff done". I am not certain how you came by this idea, but it's not true. I apologise if it's frustrating, but when you say that someone is inventing theories, this person is whoever came up with this loop stuff.

Jung "invented" the theory of typology and he said that an Introvert has this function stack: II/EE and an Extravert has this function stack: EE/II. In classical psychoanalysis, this is the accepted norm. I really didn't mean to sound pretentious or absurd. I thought I was being helpful.

I typically enjoy your posts and find you an excellent person to talk with. I am actually sad that I may have upset you in some way. I felt that I could speak freely with you. I promise I wasn't meaning anything other than what I've learned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hornpipe2
#17 ·
My understanding is Jungs theory would suggest Se-Fe-Ti-Ni and Myers theory would suggest Se-Fi-Ti-Ni. There is no dom-tert loop following Jungs or Myers theories. This is what you have been told. I am not trying to convince myself of anything.
Well, I based my arguemnts on a MBTi site and books of Myers-briggs where it is written about functional stack in a form of ieie/eiei.

Can I prove it myself? No, I can't. If you have real objections it's better to ask MBTI-trained people.

Moreover, I believe the theory itself not fully eliable, whethwe we take Jung theory or better additions. It is very limited and contradictory.

Regarding the attitude of Aux and tert MBTI Manuel says

The function opposite to the auxiliary function is the tertiary, or third, function. Several views regarding the attitude
typically used by the tertiary function have been proposed. For the purposes of exposition and consistency
with the 1985 Manual, we will assume that the dominant function operates in the preferred attitude and that the
auxiliary, tertiary, and inferior functions all take the opposite, less-preferred attitude. 7 Jungians themselves do not
agree about some specifics of Jungs psychological type theory, particularly in relation to the orientation of the
auxiliary function as identified by the J-P dichotomy.
 
#18 ·
Can I prove it myself? No, I can't. If you have real objections it's better to ask MBTI-trained people.
He has. He's also extremely familiar with all things Jungian and knows his stuff about Myers.

The MBTI, the actual instrument, only tests for dichotomy. It applies the Grant function stack arbitrarily at the end based on the person's I/E preference. It does not test for functions-in-attitude.

Also, the very manual you quote says that your own function stack would be: Fi-Ne-Se-Te. How could one get into a "dom-tertiary loop" if they're in opposite attitudes?
 
#21 ·
I believe the authors of dom-teritairy loop are
"Joel Mark Witt and Antonia Dodge are podcasters, entrepreneurs, personal development coaches, and personality typology experts who have consulted with companies like Zappos, Oracle, American Express, CNN, and many others."

In their book "personality Hacker' they write that
"To discover which cognitive functions are your tertiary and inferior, we use the principle of polarities by reversing the dominant and auxiliary. The inferior cognitive function is the polarity opposite of the dominant, whereas the tertiary function is the polarity opposite of the auxiliary.Each of the cognitive functions has an opposite function it pairs with to create a polarity, or pairing of opposites. You don’t have to look far—the polarities are all there in the eight functions."

Since 2009, we’ve been using a simple tool to teach cognitive functions; we named it the Car Model. It’s been a powerful tool in our coaching, programs, and content. We feel it is the best way to grasp the full extent of your personality.


That's it. They invented this model of opposite attitudes and spread it.


"If you recall, your Driver process, depending on your type, is either introverted or extraverted. Your Copilot process is the opposite attitude by design; it allows you access to the other “world” as a form of balance. Being 100 percent introverted or extraverted would be a form of pathology, and we don’t know if any healthy person actually occupies that space. But that doesn’t mean you don’t have a strong preference for one of those worlds, and the process that encourages you to explore the other world may be seen as threatening.

If you are deeply introverted, you may avoid your extraverted Copilot to evade a scary outer world that gives you sensory overload or negative feedback that makes you feel like your thoughts and feelings are wrong and that you aren’t enough. On the other hand, if you are highly extraverted, your introverted Copilot may force you to face uncomfortable introspection, including painful memories, trauma you haven’t worked through, or unfamiliar and unexplored parts of yourself.
Then it was matter of pure logic I guess. If they assumed that Dom and tert functions have the same attitude then when you omit you auxillary fucntion you stay with your dom-tert.

Therefore, loop.

it's not some evidence-proved theory, it's some abstract logical model.
 
#22 ·
@Allana

No. Harold Grant came up with the Grant stack: IE/IE and EI/EI. Not Personality Hacker.

Personality Hacker did talk about the loops, but that was way after it was introduced to the public, as Dissymetry said earlier.

I would still like to know what your point is exactly. You're saying that Dissy and I and (supposedly) reckful are all terribly mistaken and are sharing a joint hallucination or something yet the only evidence you provide shows that there is no such thing as a dom-tertiary loop because the functions are IEEE or EIII.

Is your point to be that we're wrong and actually Jung used the Grant stack decades before Grant came up with it? I'm just confused at what your agenda is. It seems like you're trying very hard to prove something, but I'm not sure what that something is and I'm curious.
 
#23 ·
If you don't mind, could you clarify your point without quoting anything? What exactly are you trying to say?
I'm saying that I don't have any hard evidence to argue and I don't particularly want to argue about the validity of theory. I chose this MBTi "standard" model and I use it as it is in order to avoid inconsistancies.

For me MBTi is a bit like astrology or some D&D alignment, I consider this whole theory a bit of a psychological fun game of some model.


You don't try to prove that Good neutral alighment is evidence-based, you admit it and use it where it is applicable.

My point: if the whole MBTi theory is to some extent a pile of bullshit and a mind game "for fun" then why should we argue which part of it more bullshit and which part is less bullshit?
 
#25 ·
For me MBTi is a bit like astrology or some D&D alignment, I consider this whole theory a bit of a psychological fun game of some model.
Ah I see. For me, I consider Jungian Psychology (and, therefore, his typology) a Science.

I consider MBTI a personality theory separate from Jung.

Edit to add: Yeah, I personally believe that (what was said of the tertiary function) of the aux function, but I don't have anything in Jungian theory to back that up with. I have just noticed that I use Ni the most and then T, in either direction, and so on. Same with my partner who uses Ti first and then N, in either direction. As you can see, I have not done extensive research on this and I have so few personal friends that I'd probably never be able to test the theory even to my own liking.
 
#27 ·
Science require proof and facts. I read Jung's theory but was it really fact-based? Not by modern standards anyway.
It is empirical and evidence based. By modern standards. Clearly you have not read his collected works. I advise you not to try to school me in Jung unless you know what you're talking about. I thought you didn't want to argue, right?
 
#28 ·
No, I don't want to.
But it seems to me you and some other members here are stubbonly trying to teach people about "wrongness' of "function stack" theory.


I don't understand why. This forum is not a scientific one. Why not to find real MBTi-pracitioners, psychologists and discuss it, to contact with mbti- organization. Finally find anwers WHY did they promote their "Grant" theory?

If it's wrong then what's the point?
This huge organisation continues to teach this.
 
#29 ·
lol. No, I'm not trying to say that function stack "theory" is wrong. I was only speaking to loops.

And believe me, I do talk to professionals about it. And my loving boyfriend who probably knows more about Jung than I do somehow. I practice Depth Psychology as my job so, it's sorta my life, k?

I don't feel that I was particularly stubborn. I was only stating what I knew was the truth. When others presented alternate realities, I questioned where they got that from because I'm constantly wanting to learn new things. It's not my fault they can't back up their statements. : )
 
#31 ·
lol. No, I'm not trying to say that function stack "theory" is wrong.
Well, ok, not you, it was @reckful, I think.

I don't know which of models is true Ti-Ni-Fe-SE, Ti-Ne-Fi-Se (for INTJ) like Myesrs suggested or Ti-Fe-Se-Ne like Jung
but don't you see these three models are completely different!

And does anyone try to prove which one is true?
Are there any researchers about it?
That's the most interesting part but it seems NBTI-company is developing in another direction and most modern researchers disregard this model altogether.
 
#32 · (Edited)
We're here in the cognitive functions subforum talking about MBTI. I like this forum because we get to talk about the cognitive functions here. I don't really care which is "true" or not. I'm more about what works and what doesn't, what makes sense and what doesn't and how humanity responds to conscious and unconscious material. I know looping isn't a thing because Jung's function stack is II/EE & EE/II. He based this on thousands of case studies and refined typology throughout the rest of his life.

The warnings he gives to practitioners of using certain therapeutic methods such as activating the transcendent function and using Active Imagination are almost laughable they're so over-the-top. If there was anything "dangerous" about looping, he would not have said that a healthy person exhibits two functions in the same attitude on the conscious level. That's it.

It's not about proving anything. It's just saying that, to my knowledge, "loops" are completely made up by people post Grant-stack and I have yet to see any published scientific articles about that.

For clarity:

Jung: II/EE or EE/II
Myers: IE/EE or EI/II
Grant: IE/IE or EI/EI

with "/" representing what is conscious and unconscious.
 
#36 · (Edited)
:shocked:

- - - - - - - - - -
@reckful

You had me at bogosity ... You had me at bogosity.

PS, @Kynx has asked that I kindly point out, if it is ever possible to misunderstand, that she has "dibs" on reckful. I have what is known as "second dibs" but only if my loving boyfriend isn't around. It's all very complicated, but I feel the need to explain.
 
#41 · (Edited)
@Dissymetry, @Hicks

Something to think about here, I think, is whether or not this is evidence of the "grip" (as some call it) or inferior function playing out. I seriously don't even care to think about whether or not anyone else is getting their sh*t done. It doesn't touch me unless it's the guy who helps me out with running my business. I mean, I don't even care whether or not my partner, who contributes more to our income than I do, gets his sh*t done. I'm too busy focused on my own stuff to care.

Could this attack/projection/assumption - whatever one wants to call it - come from inferior Ni? I am sincere in wondering if this might be a good example of inferior Ni or not as I have seen very few cases or examples of it in others who are at least sane, which I find Hicks to most certainly be.

- - - - - - - - - -
As for the original question ...

If I suspend my judgement and imagine that loop theory is real and I think on the difference between Te-Se and Se-Te, I'd imagine Te-Se would look more outside themselves for universal human problems and then search the Se facts for solutions while the Se - Te would happily gather as many facts as possible and then find problems to apply those facts to.

But seriously, this isn't a "thing". Even if someone was prone to doing either of those two things, it wouldn't be unhealthy, it wouldn't have anything to do with a mental disorder, and it wouldn't be some sort of circular-logic running around in circles ad infinitum. It would just be something that someone does and that's it. There's nothing wrong with this. According to Jung, Se-T and Te-S are valid types that are not unhealthy. In fact, Jung would say that this is a naturally occurring thing that many of the population do exceptionally well.

So I guess it doesn't really matter what one calls it, Se first + Te will look different from Te first + Se, but these nuances will depend on which takes precedence: the T's "what if? How do I? How about ...?" or the S's "What are the knowns, what are the facts, what do the numbers say ...?"

I hope this answers the original question. Just understand that I don't personally think that this is unhealthy in any way. I think it's actually quite healthy in extraverts.

Edit to add: Hicks, I wonder if Se-Te more accurately describes you, if you may be better typed as an ESTP instead of an ESFP? Just throwing it out as a suggestion. I am not, in any way, saying you're mistyped. I was just thinking on what you were saying re: ESFPs & ENTJs "getting stuff done" more often.

I type as INTJ in dichotomy (I prefer I to E, N to S, etc ...) AND in Jungian function-in-attitude (I am an Ni type + Thinking). I wonder if this might be a way to apply your experiences (not saying you are experiencing Se+Te, but it seems as though you might be implying that?) to as well. Again, just a thought and I'm no way saying you're mistyped; you certainly know way more about yourself than I ever can know.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top