Personality Cafe banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

ENTJ and Enneagram: What does an Enneagram type "X" look like on the ENTJ?

[ENTJ]
Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 98 Posts
#41 ·
Boolean11 said:
I meant to say that the standard definition of the ENTJ, the one in mainstream MBTI, is more of an inaccurate caricature in point of view. It just assumes that by valuing "Te" and "Ni" (under Keirsey definitions), you become a dictator. A type 5 ENTJ on these forums mistyped as an INTJ because of that. Plus that is what makes people think Bill Gates is an introvert because he is not the caricature of a "Field Marshal".
Click to expand...
Post a different one so that we can have a starting point for discussion...
 
Discussion starter · #42 ·
n2freedom said:
Post a different one so that we can have a starting point for discussion...
Click to expand...
Its too bad I can't find a Jungian function based description of ENTJs
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#43 ·
Boolean11 said:
Controlling image, is done by achieving, as opposed to type 8's dominance for the sake of it. I understand how their brand of control could be mistyped for the type 8 kind (domination).
Click to expand...
That's a misconception in my opinion propagated by stereotypes. 8's dominance is not for the sake of it. Eights control is directly correlated to a need to control their individual environment (as it relates to them) to minimize (in some cases of faulty thinking...eliminate) risk of being harmed and/or controlled. If it is in the form of dictatorship control then in my opinion that would be more indicative of an unhealthy Eight (and I mean the lowest levels).
 
#44 ·
Boolean11 said:
Its too bad I can't find a Jungian function based description of ENTJs
Click to expand...
Yes I tried to find one and found it rather a challenge too. I'll look some more when I get back from the grocery store. In the meantime do you want to explore it based on leadership style and efficiency or do you have something else in mind?
 
#45 ·
Boolean11 said:
You misinterpreted the notion I proposed of being oriented towards the "abstract", it is a drive to bring innovative abstract visions to life. And the thing is that most ENTJs stay in the crackpot visionary when they actually attempt to be the embodiment of the "visionary leader". Strategic types (ENTs), embodiment of the intuition orientation, lie somewhere between genius and delusional since the bias towards the abstract means a detachment from reality. Compared, Tactical types (ESTs) aren't in the past, they are glued in the present seeing what works and what doesn't, the comparison with past if a simplification of the greater risk aversion nature in sensors with regards to abstract leaps of faith.



Everybody is interested in results (everybody finds themselves at every point on the Enneagram chart) but the difference between "type 3" and "type 8" is huge, when treating them as pure types. Types 8s just care about control whereas Type 3s, the achievers, aren't simply interested in control but winning "archiving" something.

Your statements, I've highlighted in green, apply for every type, competence and being driven is a trait that is not exclusive to type. Though when you add Enneagram then differences emerge, not every ENTJ wants to be a CEO, not every ENTJ is "extroverted" especially when going by Jungian definition or extroversion and introversion.
Click to expand...
I think you have a bad idea of what concrete results are- this is to be differentiated from doing things in a concrete manner or having concrete thinking. A visionary may have a vision that is abstract, but when it is implemented, are the results congruent with the intention ie concrete- matching and in the scope of the intended outcome or useful to that end?, that would be the concern of concrete results. No way around it. I think anybody whether or not Si or Ni oriented who is Te dominant or secondary is looking for this, but not all types are concerned with this. This would be my process of creativity, but I know a lot of people who are purely into being experimental for it's own sake, and the outcome doesn't have to conform to intention or a plan. They are happy with a creation plain and simple. The outcome being a surprise that makes them happy. I'm more into calculation. That doesn't mean that our intention isn't new, but not just anything is acceptable.

I would agree with the statement regarding introversion and extroversion. I only identify with a couple of aspects of typical extroverted idealism. When i took the MBTI paid test, I did not come out as gregarious, and engaging (ie- introducing people to each other for the sake of connecting them and so on), but rather introverted with the aspect of being pretty well animated and intense. I only test somewhere around 20% extroverted for that reason. I also tend to get quite lonely and need people around. I can feel rather resentful if deprived of that kind of nourishment. Usually when I am experiencing this it is because of something I did admittedly. Sometimes I just have to have people around, but not be interacting with them. Just the energy of having somebody there is suffice.

The parts you highlighted I disagree with as being a trait inherent in all types. I have dealt with so many people who would not deviate from from a course even if it means we could achieve things not achieved- it's a if they are stuck on maintenance. If these types where willing to cross the line it was because they were being lazy or didn't care, but not for the sake of innovation. They would not cross the lines under any circumstance. Not everybody wants to deal with checking on progress. Not everybody is into leading. Sensing types (Si) are very attached to what has worked before.

PS- you have a habit of using language to convolute your original statements and then bend them to back peddle your arguments, while other times you will make VERY contradictory statements outright.

Image
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#46 · (Edited)
@Boolean11 for some reason this topic sparks my interest. So, I will attempt it from the standpoint of Leadership and Efficiency since most ENTJ description include this an aspect of the type. I will anything else if either one of us or someone else can find a description for a starting point. Disclaimer: I have limited knowledge of both type 1 and cognitive functions so if I get off in the land of stereotypes please steer me back. Gently of course. :wink:

OK this how I envision ENTJ with an Enneagram type 1:

Efficiency focus: Quality Control

I would envision an ENTJ 1 organizing and categorizing things, thoughts or arguments as it relates to efficiency based on Quality Control. Focused on doing "what's right" for the business and as an employee wanting "what's right" for the staff. Focusing on skills and procedures.

Leader focus: Principled

I would envision an ENTJ 1 focus to be on hard work, earned advancement, and a devotion to professionalism. Decisions may tend to favor the company at the employee's expense. If values, mission, and goals are understood, then decisions and directives will be driven by them. Skills, policies, and procedures would be a focal point in monitoring and driving performance. Focus will definitely be on how to efficiently get the job done right.

In an attempt to establish order an ENTJ 1 would likely take the route of investing an enormous amount of time and effort into researching, comparing, considering, and refining. They will go all out when they've identified with a Project and can be highly controlling if blindsided by their need for perfection and getting others to line up with the principles so to speak. In other words, ENTJ 1 could easily get caught up in the "one right way" approach.

Skilled at long range planning and scheduling. ENTJ 1 would be skilled at taking known procedures and making them stronger. Of all the ENTJ types...I believe type 1 along with 6 would excel in identifying flaws, what's missing, and what's not working. In other words troubleshooting but from different motivations. I would see a 1 zeroing in on troubleshooting from a principled (quality control) perspective. Whereas, I would see a 6 zeroing in on troubleshooting from a risk management perspective.

If I think of anything else, I will add it later.
@Monkey King and other ENTJ 1's now I'm just curious....your thoughts?
 
Discussion starter · #48 · (Edited)
Soured Lie said:
I think anybody whether or not Si or Ni oriented who is Te dominant or secondary is looking for this, but not all types are concerned with this.
Click to expand...
That is not what Te is in Jungian terms, that dichotomy only applies to David Keirsey's version of MBTI, I don't get why you haven't researched the fact that the guy created his own "MBTI" as a result. I won't disagree that if "Te" is defined as the definition of seeking competency, results, then anybody who does not score "Te" on such a test is not results focused.

The definition I have of Te is not the same being a lot closer to Jung. It is just a judgement function where logic is just "objected" leaving the subjective perception function(Ni/Si) to ascribe meaning with its ability to have a subject. Ti is just the same being capable of meaning to the "results" it chooses to chase, it then looks for "Pe" data to make the execution valid; it is a lot like Te (Pi), which is capable of latching on to the results, being result orientated.

Soured Lie said:
This would be my process of creativity, but I know a lot of people who are purely into being experimental for it's own sake, and the outcome doesn't have to conform to intention or a plan. They are happy with a creation plain and simple. The outcome being a surprise that makes them happy. I'm more into calculation. That doesn't mean that our intention isn't new, but not just anything is acceptable.

I would agree with the statement regarding introversion and extroversion. I only identify with a couple of aspects of typical extroverted idealism. When i took the MBTI paid test, I did not come out as gregarious, and engaging (ie- introducing people to each other for the sake of connecting them and so on), but rather introverted with the aspect of being pretty well animated and intense. I only test somewhere around 20% extroverted for that reason. I also tend to get quite lonely and need people around. I can feel rather resentful if deprived of that kind of nourishment. Usually when I am experiencing this it is because of something I did admittedly. Sometimes I just have to have people around, but not be interacting with them. Just the energy of having somebody there is suffice.

The parts you highlighted I disagree with as being a trait inherent in all types. I have dealt with so many people who would not deviate from from a course even if it means we could achieve things not achieved- it's a if they are stuck on maintenance. If these types where willing to cross the line it was because they were being lazy or didn't care, but not for the sake of innovation. They would not cross the lines under any circumstance. Not everybody wants to deal with checking on progress. Not everybody is into leading. Sensing types (Si) are very attached to what has worked before.
Click to expand...
Te types are not all determined and neither are non Te types incapable of being determined. The personal factor matters more with regards to determination, Enneagram type 1s are the most determined type and they can come in any MBTI. INTP/INTj Enneagram types 1 exist.

Leaning back on Jung's definition of "Si", which is more accurate as viewing the world under a subjective lens (like Ni), it turns out that their are drawn to past successfully proven "subjective lens" of solving the problem where it is evident that the judgement (Fe/Te) deems the "facts" of the new situation as being extremely similar to "solved/past facts". Ni types do the same with intuition, where when a problem has been solved there is no incentive to revisit it unless the facts have changed. Si types are actively engaged in reality, they don't live in past/comparing with the past, that was just Myers' distortion caused by here inability to contemplate the subjective lens in SJ types.

Soured Lie said:
PS- you have a habit of using language to convolute your original statements and then bend them to back peddle your arguments, while other times you will make VERY contradictory statements outright.

Image
Click to expand...
That is because I'm actually a Jungian NiTe type, my abstract perception easily develops a language of their own I express through strange metaphors and uses of words at times. I'm confident in my facts which is why I share them, when I argue its because the other person as mistakenly interpreted my point of view, whether it is my or their fault. I'm more interested in somebody understanding my point than agreeing with it. And actually an agreement without having my side comprehended seems useless.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#49 ·
There is no Jungian description out there about ENTJs. Unless you mean that stupid JCF bullshit everyone talks about and yet doesn't exist. It's like the chupacabra - just not as vicious. There is: ENTJ Profile

but I personally refuse to discuss the cognitive functions with MBTI...when they're just a lucid description of Jung's Psychological Types (which was never a system in the first place).


I only get down with Shitonics and I only stay around these corners for the few asshats that I love and enjoy.


Anyway, mind me: Keep on, keeping on...

LOL NVM, I FOUND A SEASHELL TO CRACK OPEN! BAZINGA.
 
#50 ·
Boolean11 said:
That is not what Te is in Jungian terms, that dichotomy only applies to David Keirsey's version of MBTI, I don't get why you haven't researched the fact that the guy created his own "MBTI" as a result. I won't disagree that if "Te" is defined as the definition of seeking competency, results, then anybody who does not score "Te" on such a test is not results focused.

The definition I have of Te is not the same being a lot closer to Jung. It is just a judgement function where logic is just "objected" leaving the subjective perception function(Ni/Si) to ascribe meaning with its ability to have a subject. Ti is just the same being capable of meaning to the "results" it chooses to chase, it then looks for "Pe" data to make the execution valid; it is a lot like Te (Pi), which is capable of latching on to the results, being result orientated.
Click to expand...
Guess which forum you are in. Did it ever occur to you that in a Keirsey forum most people would assume you are talking about Keirsey descriptives? Did you ever think to title your thread "Socionics or Jung and Enneagram correlations", or "Keirsey perspective on Socionics or Jung and Enneagram correlations"? Maybe move it to the Socionics or Jung subforums? I am aware of who Keirsey is and what he did... How is that relevant? Have you not grasped that have confused a few people here, and it has been mentioned probably at least three times to you that you need to define that by multiple people? You should edit the OP so that your argument or explanation is parallel to your premise. That would help ALOT.


Te types are not all determined and neither are non Te types incapable of being determined. The personal factor matters more with regards to determination, Enneagram type 1s are the most determined type and they can come in any MBTI. INTP/INTj Enneagram types 1 exist.
Click to expand...
Do I need to repeat the word "spectrum" again. I have to tell you I am not into redundancy. I thought we had cured this issue.

And type 1 being the most determined? I would argue that. I would say type 3 or 8. Achievers and challengers are more akin to determination than perfectionists.

Leaning back on Jung's definition of "Si", which is more accurate as viewing the world under a subjective lens (like Ni), it turns out that their are drawn to past successfully proven "subjective lens" of solving the problem where it is evident that the judgement (Fe/Te) deems the "facts" of the new situation as being extremely similar to "solved/past facts". Ni types do the same with intuition, where when a problem has been solved there is no incentive to revisit it unless the facts have changed. Si types are actively engaged in reality, they don't live in past/comparing with the past, that was just Myers' distortion caused by here inability to contemplate the subjective lens in SJ types.
Click to expand...
I am aware that Ni and Si are both past oriented functions, but I don't think Ni is concerned with being encumbered with what has worked in the past as the main stay of solution. Maybe in a matter of tenets (ie the tenets of how we apply math do not change nor the rigors or tenets of scientific method and so on, but the input is the experimental phase). It's more concerned with the way we can rewire facts to make new situations. I have always observed Si doing something in the way that they don't care to innovate the way we piece the puzzle together if we have an understanding already. On the contrary, it's not the facts that change that would push me to reconfigure my experiment, but that there is something that does not add up, thus coming to new evidence by way of trying things a new way, and hopefully the experiment is reproducible and we may create new facts. This is where the innovation takes place and new discoveries are made. The facts don't just pop up new on their own. The observation is not a fact until reproduced.

That is because I'm actually a Jungian NiTe type, my abstract perception easily develops a language of their own I express through strange metaphors and uses of words at times. I'm confident in my facts which is why I share them, when I argue its because the other person as mistakenly interpreted my point of view, whether it is my or their fault. I'm more interested in somebody understanding my point than agreeing with it. And actually an agreement without having my side comprehended seems useless.
Click to expand...
Yeah I would try sticking to and defining your premise so you could avoid all this. You could do a lot more to help people understand you so that they could know whether or not they disagree with you lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boolean11
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#51 ·
n2freedom said:
@Boolean11 for some reason this topic sparks my interest. So, I will attempt it from the standpoint of Leadership and Efficiency since most ENTJ description include this an aspect of the type. I will anything else if either one of us or someone else can find a description for a starting point. Disclaimer: I have limited knowledge of both type 1 and cognitive functions so if I get off in the land of stereotypes please steer me back. Gently of course. :wink:

OK this how I envision ENTJ with an Enneagram type 1:

Efficiency focus: Quality Control

I would envision an ENTJ 1 organizing and categorizing things, thoughts or arguments as it relates to efficiency based on Quality Control. Focused on doing "what's right" for the business and as an employee wanting "what's right" for the staff. Focusing on skills and procedures.

Leader focus: Principled

I would envision an ENTJ 1 focus to be on hard work, earned advancement, and a devotion to professionalism. Decisions may tend to favor the company at the employee's expense. If values, mission, and goals are understood, then decisions and directives will be driven by them. Skills, policies, and procedures would be a focal point in monitoring and driving performance. Focus will definitely be on how to efficiently get the job done right.

In an attempt to establish order an ENTJ 1 would likely take the route of investing an enormous amount of time and effort into researching, comparing, considering, and refining. They will go all out when they've identified with a Project and can be highly controlling if blindsided by their need for perfection and getting others to line up with the principles so to speak. In other words, ENTJ 1 could easily get caught up in the "one right way" approach.

Skilled at long range planning and scheduling. ENTJ 1 would be skilled at taking known procedures and making them stronger. Of all the ENTJ types...I believe type 1 along with 6 would excel in identifying flaws, what's missing, and what's not working. In other words troubleshooting but from different motivations. I would see a 1 zeroing in on troubleshooting from a principled (quality control) perspective. Whereas, I would see a 6 zeroing in on troubleshooting from a risk management perspective.

If I think of anything else, I will add it later.
@Monkey King and other ENTJ 1's now I'm just curious....your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I believe my Dad is a type 1 ENTJ and I'd say you described him very well except for the part I bolded. My Dad is extremely quick at identifying what he believes to be the right way...no research necessary, and as annoying as it can be, he is correct most of the time.
 
#52 ·
Boolean11 said:
Te types are not all determined and neither are non Te types incapable of being determined.
Click to expand...
Te, which is all about substantiating things, clarifying questions, evaluating quality, optimizing actions and processes, utilizing means for a certain goal, correct actions in various situations, perfecting old and inventing new methods and forms of activity, new constructive applications of objects in a concrete situation, etc..... YEAH, THAT'S NOT DETERMINED AT ALL!


Boolean11 said:
Leaning back on Jung's definition of "Si", which is more accurate as viewing the world under a subjective lens (like Ni), it turns out that their are drawn to past successfully proven "subjective lens" of solving the problem where it is evident that the judgement (Fe/Te) deems the "facts" of the new situation as being extremely similar to "solved/past facts". Ni types do the same with intuition, where when a problem has been solved there is no incentive to revisit it unless the facts have changed. Si types are actively engaged in reality, they don't live in past/comparing with the past, that was just Myers' distortion caused by here inability to contemplate the subjective lens in SJ types.
Click to expand...

No, Si is more about internal homeostasis and a subjective response to the present - as opposed to Se which is more about the current intensity of the present.

"The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather [p. 501] by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus."



Boolean11 said:
That is because I'm actually a Jungian NiTe type, my abstract perception easily develops a language of their own I express through strange metaphors and uses of words at times. I'm confident in my facts which is why I share them, when I argue its because the other person as mistakenly interpreted my point of view, whether it is my or their fault. I'm more interested in somebody understanding my point than agreeing with it. And actually an agreement without having my side comprehended seems useless.
Click to expand...
No, you're actually more of a Ti-Ne type. The style of your responses is more Ti-Ne like in that they're sequentially logical (whether rational or not) as your responses centralize around utilizing correct phrase construction regardless of whether or not the phrase has meaning, use of "geometrical" language in figurative meanings, organizing logical structures, expressing thoughts sequentially (in accordance with your 'Ne' in this context), etc. Several of your posts show this.


"An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness."

^ It's pretty funny how your style of writing relates to Jung's Introverted Thinking. Hell, there are far too many Ti-Ne'rs around here that think they're Ni-Te when they're not.

I can already anticipate your next argument (Can you feel what my Te-Ni is cooking?!). It will, more than likely, center around deductive reasoning and conclusions that are pretty much liable upon absolute truths, that are fallible and falsifiable, at best. Along with crappy deductions, they'll be void of objective valuation and less-than-rational thought. Then, another poster will counter-attack some of your lackadaisical propositions, like :cough: @Soured Lie :cough: and you'll continue to venture into a nonsensical frenzy - like you did in the other thread.

I need to get my popcorn for this.

Source:
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10
 
#53 ·
Enfpleasantly said:
I believe my Dad is a type 1 ENTJ and I'd say you described him very well except for the part I bolded. My Dad is extremely quick at identifying what he believes to be the right way...no research necessary, and as annoying as it can be, he is correct most of the time.
Click to expand...
Thanks. But looks like what I posted is not the purpose of this thread after all. LOL! I was all set to stretch my imagination and develop a description for ENTJ type 2 and I realized I was wasting my time. LMAO! Oh well, it had such great potential as a thread topic. :(
 
#54 ·
n2freedom said:
Thanks. But looks like what I posted is not the purpose of this thread after all. LOL! I was all set to stretch my imagination and develop a description for ENTJ type 2 and I realized I was wasting my time. LMAO! Oh well, it had such great potential as a thread topic. :(
Click to expand...
Well, you and I can continue talking about it. It has interested me for a long time and I agree, it has such potential!
 
Discussion starter · #55 ·
bionic said:
Te, which is all about substantiating things, clarifying questions, evaluating quality, optimizing actions and processes, utilizing means for a certain goal, correct actions in various situations, perfecting old and inventing new methods and forms of activity, new constructive applications of objects in a concrete situation, etc..... YEAH, THAT'S NOT DETERMINED AT ALL!
Click to expand...
That is not the "Te" definition I ascribe to. I have already stated that early on.

bionic said:
No, you're actually more of a Ti-Ne type. The style of your responses is more Ti-Ne like in that they're sequentially logical (whether rational or not) as your responses centralize around utilizing correct phrase construction regardless of whether or not the phrase has meaning, use of "geometrical" language in figurative meanings, organizing logical structures, expressing thoughts sequentially (in accordance with your 'Ne' in this context), etc. Several of your posts show this.
Click to expand...
Your subjective impression of my thinking was influenced by the wrong MBTI type tag I have. I'm an irrational introverted type and why intuition is what drives "subject". My writing style was influenced by various authors so it is not going to have a consistent pattern.


bionic said:
"An object has only to be recognized as apparently innocuous for such a type to become extremely accessible to really inferior elements. They lay hold of him from the [p. 487] unconscious. He lets himself be brutalized and exploited in the most ignominious way, if only he can be left undisturbed in the pursuit of his ideas. He simply does not see when he is being plundered behind his back and wronged in practical ways: this is because his relation to the object is such a secondary matter that lie is left without a guide in the purely objective valuation of his product. In thinking out his problems to the utmost of his ability, he also complicates them, and constantly becomes entangled in every possible scruple. However clear to himself the inner structure of his thoughts may be, he is not in the least clear where and how they link up with the world of reality. Only with difficulty can he persuade himself to admit that what is clear to him may not be equally clear to everyone. His style is usually loaded and complicated by all sorts of accessories, qualifications, saving clauses, doubts, etc., which spring from his exacting scrupulousness."

^ It's pretty funny how your style of writing relates to Jung's Introverted Thinking. Hell, there are far too many Ti-Ne'rs around here that think they're Ni-Te when they're not.

I can already anticipate your next argument (Can you feel what my Te-Ni is cooking?!). It will, more than likely, center around deductive reasoning and conclusions that are pretty much liable upon absolute truths, that are fallible and falsifiable, at best. Along with crappy deductions, they'll be void of objective valuation and less-than-rational thought. Then, another poster will counter-attack some of your lackadaisical propositions, like :cough: @Soured Lie :cough: and you'll continue to venture into a nonsensical frenzy - like you did in the other thread.

I need to get my popcorn for this.

Source:
Classics in the History of Psychology -- Jung (1921/1923) Chapter 10
Click to expand...
By the way, both Te and Ti are capable of being both deductive and inductive, Te is inductive by default especially when it "multiplies facts" to support an idea. "Te" by the virtue of being external orientating around the "ojective" is incapable of ascribing meaning to anything. The subjective/"intrverted" perception functions are the ones that ascribe meaning subjectively sorting through "Te" facts. When two "Te" types argue, the facts aren't really the source but instead how the perception function chooses to respect and arrange the given facts in question around its subject.

Ti just coerces the facts into meaning, a subject, leaving the perception data objective. And that is what makes the difference actually subtle in reality, with any function in its extroverted or introverted format.

Boolean11 said:
link to this post
Click to expand...
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#56 ·
@Boolean11

Back on page one of this blabfest, I posted that it was my belief that you weren't here to have dialog with us, you were here to "school" us (on the Enneagram - see thread title)

Turns out that you have derailed your own thread and are now trying to school us on cognitive functions.

I know I'm going to be sorry I asked, but as my buddy @bionic would say, "Whatchu talkin' about, Willis?"

(side note) For all of your (IMO) nonsensical descriptions of functions, FYI, that was Te in action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -Halo- and bionic
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#57 ·
Boolean11 said:
That is not the "Te" definition I ascribe to. I have already stated that early on.

Your subjective impression of my thinking was influenced by the wrong MBTI type tag I have. I'm an irrational introverted type and why intuition is what drives "subject". My writing style was influenced by various authors so it is not going to have a consistent pattern.
Click to expand...
^ Yup, you continue to try to prove your stance will ill informed, crappy reasoning as you sway away from the information. Still trying to complicate things and have a stance that makes no sense. Please, continue to justify your position, which is farthest from the information at hand. There is only one Te definiton, and you don't "ascribe to it" because you have no Te.

Boolean11 said:
By the way, both Te and Ti are capable of being both deductive and inductive, Te is inductive by default especially when it "multiplies facts" to support an idea. "Te" by the virtue of being external orientating around the "ojective" is incapable of ascribing meaning to anything. The subjective/"intrverted" perception functions are the ones that ascribe meaning subjectively sorting through "Te" facts. When two "Te" types argue, the facts aren't really the source but instead how the perception function chooses to respect and arrange the given facts in question around its subject.

Ti just coerces the facts into meaning, a subject, leaving the perception data objective. And that is what makes the difference actually subtle in reality, with any function in its extroverted or introverted format.
Click to expand...
^ Never said the Te and Ti aren't not capable of being deductive and inductive. That is not my point, and you've more than missed it, as you continue to pollute the facts.
 
Discussion starter · #58 ·
bionic said:
^ Yup, you continue to try to prove your stance will ill informed, crappy reasoning as you sway away from the information. Still trying to complicate things and have a stance that makes no sense. Please, continue to justify your position, which is farthest from the information at hand. There is only one Te definiton, and you don't "ascribe to it" because you have no Te.
Click to expand...
For f's sake there isn't, and you aren't even aware of that.
bionic said:
^ Never said the Te and Ti aren't not capable of being deductive and inductive. That is not my point, and you've more than missed it, as you continue to pollute the facts.
Click to expand...
You description of so called "Ti" reasoning suggested that.
@MsBossyPants
Well arguments are part of "dialogue" and everything is ultimately resolvable, there was no derail that occurred since everything remained on topic. Discussing how the definition of "Te" can affect Enneagram is related to the topic, I don't get how you can perceive that as a derail. You guys just end up being a bunch of pansies if you discussions about conflicting perspectives are an attempt at "schooling". Geezes there is no law that says discussions can't be civil whilst disagreements are expressed, it is all about mutually understanding difference not coercing people from one view to the other; everyone capable of independent reasoning arrives at their on conclusion irrespective of any external opinion. Understanding is not agreeing.

Rant aside, the fundamental premises behind this thread was to explore the range of ENTJs that can exist. I've been surprised to learn you guys strongly adhere to the Keirsey version.
@Soured Lie
Dude the argument for type 1s being the most determined stems from the fact that "perfectionism" is a trait that enslaves the mind with pedantic tendencies. Type 8s and Type 3s are more impulsive being fast paced, and that lessens their determination compared to ones.
//I'll post the table from an enneagram book that gives a short description of ENTJs in all 9 types.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
Discussion starter · #59 ·
ENTJ variations in Enneagram ​
Type 1
Extroverted Ones are often leaders and tend to impose their standards of perfect on others.

Intuitive Ones tend to be idealistic, innovative, individualistic and often non-traditional

Thinking Ones are logical, analytical, critical, and more concerned with data and things than people

Their usual preference for rationality means there are more dependable, organized and structured

Type 2
Extroverted twos are talkative, dramatic and energetic. They reach out to people and like receiving attention.

Intuitive twos are more individualistic and live more in the world of ideas. They develop the art of persuasion and think of possibilities that could improve people’s lives

Thinking twos offer objectivity and detachment in the manner they assist others, thinking being more active on the personality.

Rational (judging) twos are more consistent and orderly

Type 3
Extroverted threes are action orientated and fast paced. Extroverted threes are good communicators and like to be in the limelight.

Intuitive threes are future orientated and innovative or visionary

Threes who prefer thinking are objective, tough-minded, and goal orientated, they usually become executives in enterprises.

Rational twos are structured and organized

Type 4
Extroverted fours are sociable and expressive, tends to be flamboyant.

Intuitive fours are insightful, idealistic and often more interested in the world of imagination than in everyday reality

Thinking tend to be more analytical and objective

Rational fours and preserve


Type 5
Extroverted fives are outspoken, sociable and intellectually assertive.

Intuitive Fives tend to be more insightful, innovative, theoretical and scholarly

Thinking fives use logic and analysis to solve problems and make decisions

Rational fives are organized tending to follow through with goals

Type 6
Extroverted sixes are talkative and sociable

Intuitive sixes are more individualistic innovative and future oriented

Thinking sixes are critical objective and logical, more likely to be counterphobic

Rational sixes tend to be structured

Type 7
Extroverted sevens are talkative sociable, fast paced and fun loving. They usually have a large variety of friends and experiences.

Intuitive sevens tend to be imaginative innovative and creative

Thinking sevens tend to be objective logical challenging and blunt

Rational are good administrators and organizers

Type 8
Extroverted Eights are energetic, exuberant, outspoken and fast paced. They often become forceful leaders.

Intuitive eights become visionary leaders or innovative leaders

Thinking eights are direct analytical and blunt

Rational eights are decisive and organized
Type 9
Extroverted nines are sociable, talkative and energetic

Intuitive nines are more idealistic, individualistic and interested in the world of ideas and possibilities

Thinking nines tend to be analytical analytical critical and objective

Rational nines are organized wanting closure

Source: The Enneagram Made Easy: Discover the 9 Types of People by Renne Baron
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
#60 ·
Boolean11 said:
@MsBossyPants
Well arguments are part of "dialogue" and everything is ultimately resolvable, there was no derail that occurred since everything remained on topic. Discussing how the definition of "Te" can affect Enneagram is related to the topic, I don't get how you can perceive that as a derail. You guys just end up being a bunch of pansies if you discussions about conflicting perspectives are an attempt at "schooling". Geezes there is no law that says discussions can't be civil whilst disagreements are expressed, it is all about mutually understanding difference not coercing people from one view to the other; everyone capable of independent reasoning arrives at their on conclusion irrespective of any external opinion. Understanding is not agreeing.

Rant aside, the fundamental premises behind this thread was to explore the range of ENTJs that can exist. I've been surprised to learn you guys strongly adhere to the Keirsey version.
Click to expand...
So, I guess you're going to move on to Keirsey now.

I'll go get the popcorn started, and put the beer on ice ... it's going to be a looooooong night.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
41 - 60 of 98 Posts
About this Discussion
97 Replies
9 Participants
Last post:
Enfpleasantly
Personality Cafe
posts
11M
members
172K
Since
2008
A forum community dedicated to all ranges of personality types and people. Come join the discussion about health, behavior, care, testing, personality types, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
INFP Forum - The Idealists INFJ Forum - The Protectors INTP Forum - The Thinkers INTJ Forum - The Scientists Myers Briggs Forum