[ENFP] ESFP vs ENFP? Mistype? - Page 2

ESFP vs ENFP? Mistype?

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35
Thank Tree55Thanks

This is a discussion on ESFP vs ENFP? Mistype? within the ENFP Forum - The Inspirers forums, part of the NF's Temperament Forum- The Dreamers category; Originally Posted by Jawz Hey Alesha - I already worked with him yesterday and after some good back and forth ...

  1. #11

    Quote Originally Posted by Jawz View Post
    Hey Alesha - I already worked with him yesterday and after some good back and forth we decided that he's actively showing more inferior Ni as well as Se overall. In his other thread in the ESFP section he does indeed indicate that he has a lot of fairly stereotypical sensor related preferences ...

    I had this discussion about what appears to be Ne for ESTP's with another ESTP (I'd mention but he's retired now) and he and I both concluded that Extroverted Intuition because of its extroverted nature is not completely opposed to ESTPs introverted intuition making it easier for us to access it in times of necessity and need. We revert to it when our flow is broken in a crisis because once that flow that is so central to ESTP's is non-existent we need to develop ideas, brainstorm and actively give ourselves access to opportunities we develop in order to continue to function and return ourselves to that flow.

    Reality for us is absolute and a must. Deep inside our head is a mishmash of junk (I call it that because it's a lot of loosely fitted/abstract concepts and ideas that need to be taken one at a time and compared with reality in order for them to make sense and be practical). A lot of that junk as I like to call it are abstract ideas, big picture thoughts, loosely related concepts that have collected over the years but have been deemed to not have much practical use or purpose. But often times those deep ideas will connect to something in the external world and it will be like "oh yea, wow that makes so much sense" and that becomes the basis for a new, deeper realization, world-view etc. This can make a more reflective, deep thinking ESTP appear to almost "N-like" mistyping as any of the intuitive types.

    The problem with introverted intuition for ESTP's is not that we can't think big (thinking is the T function and not the N function as some tend to think), it's that we actively suppress our hunches and second guess ourselves - therefore tending to at times stick with situations longer than we have to.

    At the same time, we tend to have a pull towards spirituality and also orientation towards big picture thinking inside our minds because of the introverted intuition. Just because it's an unconscious side doesn't mean it's just not present. It just means that whatever big picture/future-oriented idea we get we tend to repress, suppress and not think about in the moment, but that over a long sequence of events/and over time we do indeed develop a strong idea or ideas overall.

    My most desired goal out of MBTI was to get a solution so I wouldn't repeat the mistakes I made in my 20's. It was still a desire to practically apply cognitive functions to reality. To make use of it somehow. It's never been just about the ideas because almost like a stereotype every time I dive into any conversation my goal is almost always to pull out something practical and useful out of it - irrespective of whether it's abstract or not. Abstraction for the sake of abstraction is essentially a boring activity for me and therefore I tend not to indulge too much into it - unless I have some other (obvious or hidden) motivation that has something to do with my current reality.
    Awesome, Jawz. It gives me a much better understanding and actually a lot more commonality to think about. Thank you very much for this and for helping the big s. =)
    Jawz thanked this post.

  2. #12
    ENFP

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyralen View Post
    From this Dario Nardi based How Each Type learn math video Iíve been into, then the speaker says that Ns couldnít help learning from the actual numbers and the Ss did best when they could put the math info into real life stuff. Watching it clarified S and N fairly well for me in a math sense. The thing is Ne canít help but trans-contextualize, itís how we learn. Se canít help but want action, I think. Jawz, I hope you can help because thatís how dopey I feel about all of this.
    Actually, I might have a great example of this. When I was in gradeschool they tried implementing a technique where we each got a bag full of sticks in different lengths and colors. Each of the sticks would represent a number, so after getting to know all the numbers each stick represents it would become easier for people who depend on physicality for learning to do math. Simple right? Well I thought it was. Easy, Nine is the really long purple one and two is the really short yellow one. Well, that technique didn't last very long in our country's curriculum simply because it caused massive confusion for most of the students. This kind of technique requires trans-contextual thinking, since for most sensors a red stick is a red stick, it's not a 5. People started answering in colors instead of numbers.

  3. #13

    Quote Originally Posted by Fru2 View Post
    Actually, I might have a great example of this. When I was in gradeschool they tried implementing a technique where we each got a bag full of sticks in different lengths and colors. Each of the sticks would represent a number, so after getting to know all the numbers each stick represents it would become easier for people who depend on physicality for learning to do math. Simple right? Well I thought it was. Easy, Nine is the really long purple one and two is the really short yellow one. Well, that technique didn't last very long in our country's curriculum simply because it caused massive confusion for most of the students. This kind of technique requires trans-contextual thinking, since for most sensors a red stick is a red stick, it's not a 5. People started answering in colors instead of numbers.
    Oh my gosh... fascinating. That was like asking the sensors to make a symbol out of five apples (the symbol is the number 5) and then asking them to make a second symbol out of the color red. Gosh.... lol....
    Here’s the video again
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YH9Zn7Glf3E
    Fru2 thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14

    Quote Originally Posted by Fru2 View Post
    Actually, I might have a great example of this. When I was in gradeschool they tried implementing a technique where we each got a bag full of sticks in different lengths and colors. Each of the sticks would represent a number, so after getting to know all the numbers each stick represents it would become easier for people who depend on physicality for learning to do math. Simple right? Well I thought it was. Easy, Nine is the really long purple one and two is the really short yellow one. Well, that technique didn't last very long in our country's curriculum simply because it caused massive confusion for most of the students. This kind of technique requires trans-contextual thinking, since for most sensors a red stick is a red stick, it's not a 5. People started answering in colors instead of numbers.
    Saying that X=5 and B=10 therefore X+B=15 is mathematical not trans-contextual. That would be like saying that sensors can't learn math.

    They just over-complicated a simple concept and that's probably why the confusion happened. It seems like a completely unnecessary step in order to teach someone how to solve equations. It's inefficient imo.
    Llyralen and Elwinz thanked this post.

  6. #15
    ENFP

    Quote Originally Posted by Llyralen View Post
    Oh my gosh... fascinating. That was like asking the sensors to make a symbol out of five apples (the symbol is the number 5) and then asking them to make a second symbol out of the color red. Gosh.... lol....
    Here’s the video again
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YH9Zn7Glf3E
    That's what happens when you let intuitives make something more compatible to sensors, the just make it worse lol I have to say it was one of the more amusing times at school. I was on the floor every time somebody came up with a silly answer or alternative to those sticks. Meanwhile, I'm here thinking of a hundred different ways to make myself complete this report instead of just finishing it.
    @Jawz Sensors still have a harder time grasping math than intuitives, I'm not saying they can't, it's just in a different way. And I found no problem with the sticks, to me it didn't really matter, while a lot of people got frustrated by it saying the same as you that it's inefficient, which it indeed is.
    Llyralen thanked this post.

  7. #16

    Quote Originally Posted by Fru2 View Post
    @Jawz Sensors still have a harder time grasping math than intuitives, I'm not saying they can't, it's just in a different way. And I found no problem with the sticks, to me it didn't really matter, while a lot of people got frustrated by it saying the same as you that it's inefficient, which it indeed is.
    Schrodinger's Sensors according to typology forums: Simultaneously control the world, organize it to favor themselves, while also being bad at math, big ideas and abstract thinking.

    Please. Stop. Relating. Nonsense. To. Functions.

    I'm being light-hearted for now, but I would be interested in you backing up the claim that Sensors have a harder time grasping math. This should be interesting.
    JennyJukes, Falling Foxes, Alassea and 2 others thanked this post.

  8. #17
    ENFP

    Quote Originally Posted by Jawz View Post
    Schrodinger's Sensors according to typology forums: Simultaneously control the world, organize it to favor themselves, while also being bad at math, big ideas and abstract thinking.

    Please. Stop. Relating. Nonsense. To. Functions.

    I'm being light-hearted for now, but I would be interested in you backing up the claim that Sensors have a harder time grasping math. This should be interesting.
    You know what? I'll rephrase myself. Math is largely an abstract idea that is highly applicable for use in day to day life. Sensors have no problem in learning the concept, they just use it when it's applicable, not for it's own sake. Same goes for trans--contextual thinking, you can use it and I'm sure you're very good at it, just like I have a good Se at times where I see it necessary. Meanwhile, I'm using Ne by instinct, it's my go-to function, that's why I might have more experience than you at trans-contextual thinking. Okay, so you say that this example I gave is math, but for me it's also a kind of trans-contextual thinking, and this, by itself, is also a form of trans-contextual thinking that you're not willing to see, mainly because you find terming it as a different subject as easier and more practical than seeing it as something of a bigger whole, which I in turn would find more efficient and logical. Capiche?
    Last edited by Fru2; 11-19-2018 at 05:51 AM.
    Llyralen thanked this post.

  9. #18

    Quote Originally Posted by Fru2 View Post
    You know what? I'll rephrase myself. Math is largely an abstract idea that is highly applicable for use in day to day life. Sensors have no problem in learning the concept, they just use it when it's applicable, not for it's own sake.
    There is abstraction in some aspects of math, but that does not mean that it would make sensors bad at grasping it even in a purely theoretical fashion simply because that abstraction now exists in concrete form with theorums and proofs that follow linear thought. When it comes to abstractions and intuition the connection there is in creation and solving of new abstractions as opposed to understanding generalized principles that already have those explanations. That is by and large, as a whole the true context of Jung's "creation" and "abstraction" when it comes to his intuitive types.

    It has little to nothing to do with complexity in and of itself. Complexity and capability fall outside the realm of Jung's core ideas behind cognition.

    Most of math is actually very concrete and the example that you used is simple. The problem arises in complication of theorums and proofs not in their abstractedness because when you break every theory down, it is based on concrete principles which seek to objectively explain reality.

    Bohr's atom is an abstract concept and eventually through persuit and more scientific scrutiny it was eventually proven to be false. There are several other exampels.

    Also, the above a different claim from below:

    Quote Originally Posted by Fru2 View Post
    @Jawz Sensors still have a harder time grasping math than intuitives, I'm not saying they can't, it's just in a different way. And I found no problem with the sticks, to me it didn't really matter, while a lot of people got frustrated by it saying the same as you that it's inefficient, which it indeed is.
    Please tell me how you arrived at the conclusion that Sensors have a harder time grasping math than intuitives. What is the evidence for this claim? I know Te is not comfortable for most ENFP's and therefore you're getting aggravated at having to justify a claim, but in order to move this conversation forward you need to support the claim.

    Same goes for trans--contextual thinking, you can use it and I'm sure you're very good at it, just like I have a good Se at times where I see it necessary. Meanwhile, I'm using Ne by instinct, it's my go-to function, that's why I might have more experience than you at trans-contextual thinking. Okay, so you say that this example I gave is math, but for me it's also a kind of trans-contextual thinking, and this, by itself, is also a form of trans-contextual thinking that you're not willing to see, mainly because you find terming it as a different subject as easier and more practical than seeing it as something of a bigger whole, which I in turn would find more efficient and logical. Capiche?
    We were never comparing one another here at all so I have no clue why you're resorting to comparing myself to yourself in this discussion where I simply asked you to back up why sensors would be bad at math?

    IMO, you didn't cite or give me an intuitive thought. You gave me a claim that I asked you to justify. If you can justify that claim through intuition even, I would still like to hear it instead of tangents. Tangents can work only if they're used to arrive to a conclusion. You've arrived at your conclusion. You just simply need to express how and support your argument with some sort of explanation.
    elvis2010, Alassea, Llyralen and 1 others thanked this post.

  10. #19
    ENFP

    @Jawz As I said. Math = abstract concept that could be proven by physical phenomena. Intuitives = grasp math concept without having to go much into detail as long as it fits the big picture. Sensors = grasp math concept by going into the details in order to understand the big picture. I didn't say that you suck at math, I said that you have a different way of learning it that I see as a more troublesome way, because you need an extra step of detailing an introduced concept before integrating it into the bigger picture, which is done by practice. You want a concrete example? Watch the Dario Nardi lecture that Llyralen sent. Or better:


  11. #20

    Lol...this is now so interesting! And it’s really good to learn how sensors see things @Jawz . I think it’s so easy—because Ns learn pretty much only through intuition— to think of math as purely abstract. Because I only learn math through abstract concepts and it’s almost impossible for me to think of how a sensor learns math. But math IS basically only a language to describe real concrete things in the world. So it doesn’t have to be looked at as abstract! There is a way to understand it the sensing way...but ranged if I could th8nk of how. This is why I need to talk to sensors more. And thank you, @Jawz .

    By the way, we still use Bohr’s model to teach chemistry because it helps us learn the other parts of things. Oh, how sensors and intuitive learn chemistry would be another highly interesting topic. Did I need the straws and play dough. internally I’m very visual so I always just made the models in my head, but I admit that getting past Bohr and into electron fields was difficult for me and luckily I didn’t need to much, as my area of chemistry is biological and not physics, but still... you know, I also didn’t like the way in which calculus was taught to me. I had a harder time with it, when I think it probably should have been easier. I do wonder if it is the WAY in which it was being taught to me, because usually designing a roller coaster you would think a ENFP could do. I had Si teachers for calculus both in high school and in college...so there was just all of that repetition stuff and probably not enough of whatever I needed.

    Anyway, @Jawz what do you think of that tedtalks math video I posted above? What about the looking out of a window stuff? And do you learn better if you can move around, etc?

    I wonder if @elvis2010 is around?
    Last edited by Llyralen; 11-19-2018 at 06:36 AM.
    Fru2 thanked this post.


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [ESFP] ESFP vs ENFP? DId i mistype??
    By The Big S in forum ESFP Forum - The Performers
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-30-2018, 06:50 AM
  2. [Enneagram Type 4] Do 4's mistype as 6's and do 6's mistype as 4's
    By desecrationsmile in forum Type 4 Forum - The Individualist
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-20-2015, 09:17 PM
  3. Why we often mistype: What we value vs What comes naturally
    By perpetuallyreticent in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-25-2015, 08:32 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-29-2014, 08:12 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:02 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0