ENFP / ENTP Superficiality

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by substitute

Just goes to show how much variation there is between people in the same type, huh?

Maybe it has something to do with expectations socially on males being different to females. In my thread about T women and F men, I wanted to explore that sort of thing, how it might cause the same temperament characteristics to manifest in different ways, so that perhaps my brother reacts more kinda defensively against himself. As a man, he knows he's expected to be certain, sure, confident, bold and assertive, but perhaps as an Fi type he knows that really he's quite sensitive and even insecure. It could be that social conditioning has caused him to feel embarrassed about his own tendencies, whilst maybe a female might be more willing to embrace them or simply own up to them. I don't know, this is pure speculation, but it'd be fascinating to thrash it out and see what others might make of the concept.

I think this might also be one reason why female ENTP's don't seem perhaps as "superficial" as male ones, because they could feel more comfortable with balancing things with a bit of feeling, whilst men might worry that doing so makes them weak. A female ENTP would possibly be more willing to show the passion behind the "superficial" joking and casual theorizing, whilst at least in British culture that's just not really cricket for a man to do. So you're right - there is an element of hiding something more complex and deep behind the jester facade.

People who have dominant or auxiliary Fi won't be insecure about thier feelings. It seems people still don't understand the feeling attitudes.
(All self-identifying __FP types should listen up if thier unsure about thier type)
OK. There is No across the board about whether these people voice thier Fi opinions (often they remain silent), but inside Fi values are non-negotiable, and one of the key components is not really caring what others think.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by Gabe

So I have this friend, and he's this really shallow ENTP.....
the reason why I don't tell those stories is because it's not about type anymore, it's just about bias.

Yes, that is what every thread becomes about as soon as you show up.

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan

Yes, that is what every thread becomes about as soon as you show up.

Which, in my Fi, opinion, is much better than PRETENDING (oh it sure is pretending) to be somehow *above/devoid of bias.

This thread was started based on a bias.

[substitute]

Okay Gabe I understand what you're saying and I've no problem with it.

One minor clarification though:

You're the realistic, sensible, ENTP, and your brother is just the loony, overemoting ENFP.

That isn't quite what I meant... in fact I kinda was trying to say that this was the perception that I sometimes get. But owning that it's subjective, and not expecting anyone else to agree but rather, trying to get to the bottom of why I have that perception, always quite open to the answer not being "because it's true".

Of course the things I say seem realistic and sensible from my point of view, otherwise I wouldn't be saying them. But if they don't seem it from someone else's point of view then I'd rather they just told me so and explained why, than snark at me and get defensive - which is not what I'm saying you're doing, but it's what he does. In fact it might not even be what he does, but simply my perception of what he does. Point is, bottom line: I have this perception, this impression, and here are my reasons for it. I know it might be wrong, so my main concern is to examine it and find out the truth. In this case, I'm not out to win - I don't have a point that I strongly believe in that I want you to adopt. All I have is a perception and a bit of confusion, so when you react the way you have been, I want to know why that seems to strengthen this perception, giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing you when you say it's not so.

Imagine you and I are sitting on either side of an opaque wall that has just one small transparent window, about the size of the palm of your hand. I'm wearing red tinted sunglasses. You hold a green apple up to the window and say "this is a green apple". I say "it's not, it's a red apple". You adamantly insist that it's green, but I equally adamantly insist that all I see is red. You don't know that I'm wearing the sunglasses and that I'm really telling the truth about what I see, but I've been wearing the glasses so long I've forgotten they're even there, so I don't click that they're the reason we're arguing or think of taking them off.

Now, what I want to do is get to the bottom of why you see green and I see red. I'm not calling you a liar, but what I see is what I see, and I'm not lying either about what I see. If you and I could focus on believing each other's intentions to be good, and not doubt each other's sincerity, we could probably come up with a series of "experiments" that would soon reveal the sunglasses to be the real culprit for the misunderstanding. I'd suddenly realize I was wearing them, take them off, laugh and kick myself, and thank you for removing one more obstacle that was in the way of my aim of obtaining a clear perception of reality. I'd never call a green apple red again, and if I ever saw one that seemed red, I'd be checking to see if I'd inadvertently put those sunglasses back on without realizing it.

Does that reach you at all?

[Gabe]

Originally Posted by substitute

Okay Gabe I understand what you're saying and I've no problem with it.

One minor clarification though:



That isn't quite what I meant... in fact I kinda was trying to say that this was the perception that I sometimes get. But owning that it's subjective, and not expecting anyone else to agree but rather, trying to get to the bottom of why I have that perception, always quite open to the answer not being "because it's true".

Of course the things I say seem realistic and sensible from my point of view, otherwise I wouldn't be saying them. But if they don't seem it from someone else's point of view then I'd rather they just told me so and explained why, than snark at me and get defensive - which is not what I'm saying you're doing, but it's what he does. In fact it might not even be what he does, but simply my perception of what he does. Point is, bottom line: I have this perception, this impression, and here are my reasons for it. I know it might be wrong, so my main concern is to examine it and find out the truth. In this case, I'm not out to win - I don't have a point that I strongly believe in that I want you to adopt. All I have is a perception and a bit of confusion, so when you react the way you have been, I want to know why that seems to strengthen this perception, giving you the benefit of the doubt and believing you when you say it's not so.

Imagine you and I are sitting on either side of an opaque wall that has just one small transparent window, about the size of the palm of your hand. I'm wearing red tinted sunglasses. You hold a green apple up to the window and say "this is a green apple". I say "it's not, it's a red apple". You adamantly insist that it's green, but I equally adamantly insist that all I see is red. You don't know that I'm wearing the sunglasses and that I'm really telling the truth about what I see, but I've been wearing the glasses so long I've forgotten they're even there, so I don't click that they're the reason we're arguing or think of taking them off.

Now, what I want to do is get to the bottom of why you see green and I see red. I'm not calling you a liar, but what I see is what I see, and I'm not lying either about what I see. If you and I could focus on believing each other's intentions to be good, and not doubt each other's sincerity, we could probably come up with a series of "experiments" that would soon reveal the sunglasses to be the real culprit for the misunderstanding. I'd suddenly realize I was wearing them, take them off, laugh and kick myself, and thank you for removing one more obstacle that was in the way of my aim of obtaining a clear perception of reality. I'd never call a green apple red again, and if I ever saw one that seemed red, I'd be checking to see if I'd inadvertently put those sunglasses back on without realizing it.

Does that reach you at all?

(giving you the benifit of the doubt) Your brother may (MAY) be emotionally abusive. Whatever that is, I don't think it says anything about ENFPs. And if you want to talk about Fi emotional tyranny, tyranny/abuse would even be Ok words (I'd accept them). What's NOT right is the idea getting evolved on this thread about that feeling-associated behavior being superficial (the way you describe it, it's feeling). I would even be willing to use not-so-nice words to describe the behavior, I just Will Not call it superficial, partly because that's really not the right word, and partly because I don't want to lend anything to a Blackwater-theory. Because I was so angry at blackwater, and about where I was afraid this thread would go, I snapped at you. I'm sorry.

(and that is purely about my value-opinion of Blackwater's motives. Believe me, Blackwater, if you hadn't made that thread about "ENFX HYpocracy" I would've been much more open to your 'inquiry' with this thread. That's not 'superficiality', and I'm not apologizing for that judgement.)

[substitute]

Originally Posted by Gabe

(giving you the benifit of the doubt) Your brother may (MAY) be emotionally abusive. Whatever that is, I don't think it says anything about ENFPs. And if you want to talk about Fi emotional tyranny, tyranny/abuse would even be Ok words (I'd accept them).

Okay, well I wasn't really talking about his behaviour as being an F or Fi thing, but something Ne types are all prone to because of the intense connection that we have to the external environment - especially ENxP's. I wasn't knocking ENFP's... just providing my observation of one particular Ne dominant person by way of examples of how it can give impressions of superficiality, albeit that those impressions might be erroneous. I display many of those same behaviours myself, to a greater or lesser degree, but believe me when I say that the external discipline I've had over the last few years has been like an iron fist!! I simply have not been able to get away with being that way any more and it's forced me to change (and as I mentioned, still get it wrong quite a lot). My brother had no such external influence and so is pretty much the same in that regard as I ever was. I wasn't saying that his lack of desire to change bad behaviour was a direct consequence of being an ENFP as opposed to ENTP, but more speculating over whether it was something that other people fall into as well, which I've only managed to partially amend due to the external influence.

What's NOT right is the idea getting evolved on this thread about that feeling-associated behavior being superficial

Well, if that's what was happening then I agree that's wrong. If I've been unable to see it then I own that it's probably my own fault. But TBH, the word "superficial" is so vague and full of different possible meanings that I don't even know whether or not to protest against being called it!!! LOL!!

Because I was so angry at blackwater, and about where I was afraid this thread would go, I snapped at you. I'm sorry.

Poor Blackwater! Hoist by his own petard, eh?

Haha... no, it's okay, I'm not mad or anything, I was just confused!

BlueWing did quite a good bit about Ne dominance and how it creates that intense external attunement thingy that makes us both quite vulnerable to attacks from outside. It's here, in case you're interested.

[Gabe]

Oh, no, the definition of superficial....uhhh....I'm going to have to go lie down a bit now that you just made me realize I'm not sure about exactly what it means.

[Santtu]

So, my net got back online.

Ok, I'll answer starting from the first point, reading more of this later etc..

Whether everyone's "jumping on the bandwagon" or confirming some real observations is a matter of opinion. I don't think either of them is happening, tho.

What's superficiality then? Interest to the obvious and shallow as opposed to something requiring study and observance.

I was tempted to say that Gabe's treatment of the issue was superficial. But then again, he pointed out some deep motivational possibilities behind each person's statements. Yay, that's actually digging deeper than what what we usually do. I actually began to think of this.

How much can we expect some factually presented arguments to be backed up by cold logic? How much by intense feelings? How do we choose from T/F explanations anyway? Seeing that some explanation feels good but the logic doesn't quite add up, which side are we to follow? How about something proved with logic, leading to morally unacceptable conclusions? People often have difficulties making up their mind with conflicting left/right side brain impulses, let alone making their minds when the two conflicting sides are not situated in the same skull.

Communication is so much slower and unreliable verbally than what it is inside person's brains.

Yet, I find it absolutely clear that a convincing case can't be established solely on emotional evidence, as it can't be established solely on factual evidence.

Ok, so it's in the tobacco companies best interest to say that tobacco is healthy. Does it logically mean that their positive statements about tobacco will therefore be untrue? No.

Does it mean that a person interested in the truth should weight the evidence from a tobacco company with equal weight as they would weight that from an independent researcher? No.

What I'm saying is that both the deep motivations (which ENFP adeptly finds out, and sometimes invents out of thin air) and the facts presented should be considered when weighing the evidence.

[Santtu]

What's there about public dissection that male ENFP's dislike so much on this forum? Now, let me get my instruments and prepare the microscope. Stay still, this won't hurt a bit (for me) ..