ENFP / ENTP Superficiality

[Blackwater]

Ok, so ENTPs are usually accused of being somewhat superficial and haphazard in their speculations and opinions. I can understand that.

But what I can't understand is why these charges are only rarely leveled at our ENFP siblings. I know quite a few ENFPs IRL and almost all of them have this tendency to splatter inconsistant and superficial points about them yet, in the case of ENFP, people are more like "oh they're just being silly" or even from an MBTI textbook I once read: "When ENFPs try to verbalize their insights the result often comes out cluttered and imprecise".

So basically, isn't this the same behavior from ENFPs as you've seen from ENTPs only with a different motive? Why then, should there be another discourse for dealing with ENFPs?

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Ok, so ENTPs are usually accused of being somewhat superficial and haphazard in their speculations and opinions. I can understand that.

But what I can't understand is why these charges are only rarely leveled at our ENFP siblings. I know quite a few ENFPs IRL and almost all of them have this tendency to splatter inconsistant and superficial points about them yet, in the case of ENFP, people are more like "oh they're just being silly" or even from an MBTI textbook I once read: "When ENFPs try to verbalize their insights the result often comes out cluttered".

So basically, isn't this the same behavior from ENFPs as you've seen from ENTPs only with a different motive? When then, should there be another discourse for dealing with ENFPs?

I don't see how the words "cluttered" and the words "superficial" are related.
I also never called an ENTP superficial. I tend to think of superficiality as being more of an S thing.

[Blackwater]

I wrote you a reply but it got sucked into the eternal void of cyberspace

Anyhow, to make a long post short:

There's at least one active thread here that names ENTP as the most superficial type. And the case isn't unique. Anyhow;

Please try to cut the above observation some slack on the formalities and see where I am going with it, if possible

[CzeCze]

Originally Posted by Blackwater

So basically, isn't this the same behavior from ENFPs as you've seen from ENTPs only with a different motive? Why then, should there be another discourse for dealing with ENFPs?

'Cause we're special?



I didn't know that ENTPs were supposed to be the most superficial type. Though I don't really get the use of the word 'superficial' in this case and what it's applies to exactly.

Thank you for that ammunition though. It will come in handy for any future NT/NF flame wars.

You should check out the 'most objective' type thread. That thread was awesome. I didn't read through all of it though. That's how awesome it was.

[BTW, if my response seems superficial it's because it is intentional. It's a form a high-brow humor. Seriously.]

[BlueWing]

Originally Posted by Blackwater

Ok, so ENTPs are usually accused of being somewhat superficial and haphazard in their speculations and opinions. I can understand that.

But what I can't understand is why these charges are only rarely leveled at our ENFP siblings. I know quite a few ENFPs IRL and almost all of them have this tendency to splatter inconsistant and superficial points about them yet, in the case of ENFP, people are more like "oh they're just being silly" or even from an MBTI textbook I once read: "When ENFPs try to verbalize their insights the result often comes out cluttered and imprecise".

So basically, isn't this the same behavior from ENFPs as you've seen from ENTPs only with a different motive? Why then, should there be another discourse for dealing with ENFPs?

They thought it wouldnt be prudent to put this truth so bluntly to an F.

[Magic Poriferan]

*Shrug*.
I kind of thought the ESFP was the most superficial.

[substitute]

When my brother (ENFP) and I argue, both of us have a tendency to randomly cycle through 'cases' and 'explanations', presenting them with gusto and enthusiasm when in fact, we don't really stand by them or believe them. We're just both in the full swing of "persuasion mode". When we say a certain thing, it's not because we personally feel that thing is particularly important, but we're hoping that the other person does, so that we'll have a "bite", as it were. We're just trying to find or hit on something that the other person will respond to, so we know which avenue to go down, to persuade them of whatever it is. That's the similarity.

However, here are the differences: he fumbles around for an emotional point of access; he's looking for some way to persuade me that whatever it is he wants me to believe, do or whatever, will make me happy; that it's the right thing and what will make me and everyone else happy. When I do it, I'm looking for a way to present my aim as The Only Logical Option (tm). I use facts and concepts to persuade, and my theory is usually pretty consistent; I'm building a case, using blocks that the other person pretty much hands to me by showing me what things are important to them; their points of access.

He uses quite random (apparently) and circular arguments, using value judgements and stuff to present the alternatives as: 1 - do as I say and everyone will be happy and you'll be a good person or 2 - don't do as I say, but then you'll be mean and selfish and nobody will like you. My options are more like 1 - do as I say, and everything will work out, it'll all fall into place, though it may not be easy or 2 - don't do as I say, in which case, it's your funeral mate!

It can appear that we're both superficial, because neither of us believes entirely in much of what we say, we're just using it as persuasion ammo. But at the root of it, there's another thing we both have in common: that we both believe in the objective or aim that all of these things point towards. More than one way to skin a cat; all roads lead to Rome, etc.

Picture it like a staircase made of Lego. Though we don't personally care for the colours and shapes of the building blocks, or even the shape of the thing when it's finished, the point is that it's in the right place, does the right job and leads to something we do believe in, very strongly. It doesn't matter whether we, personally, like the colour - what matters is that the staircase possesses the right properties to appeal to the person in question and to make them want to climb it.

I feel I might have confused the issue even more here... lol

But of course, when we both team up to persuade someone else of something, they really haven't got a hope in hell of getting away unpersuaded!

[Santtu]

ENTP are often big thinkers with a social comedian persona, or a variation of the theme. Does anyone find it a bit surprising that there's more than 1 side to a person?

As I've seen it, ENXPs can be quite similar. It's usual to see emotional, people-loving technical ENTPs as well as ENFPs. After all, their T and F functions are in secondary and tertiary positions, just places and intro/extroversion switched.

Yeah, ENXP's play may be the most superficial kind there is.. it's publicly so, it's an act.. entertainment.. it's a parody on what's superficial. It may be over-the-top. ENTP's are masters of systems, they're confident with extraversion, whimsical, spontaneous, so it's natural they choose a superficial act as their "funny mode" behaviour.

I think ENFP's are closer to their core identity in their "people" mode, funny random things (Ne) depending on what people feel (secondary Fi), giving less reason to blame them about superficiality. ENTP's public funny act works more with Ne Fe, of which Fe is superficial, and it's use is somewhat planned with Ti.

ENTP's core is not superficial in the least, it's quite ok contemplating with charts, books and all the esoteric information for as long as it needs, no matter how difficult or obscure it would be - as long as there's a reason to do it, and for ENTP, there often is.

Then again, ENFP's core (Ne Fi) is a bit more people-dependent than that of ENTP. Whereas both can do their information-gathering via books and other media, T-like experimentation is less reliant on people than experimenting with F. So, ENFP probably feels more reason to spend time with people, giving rise to suspicions it's them that's actually the more superficial one.

So all in all, they're both very much ideas persons, with their interests having a wide range from profound to the superficial - I'd say more so than all other types.

[LadyJaye]

I would never have considered ENTP or ENFP to be superficial types.

Truthfully, I relate very heavily with ENTP's. I always thought ENTP's and ENFP's were quite similar in many regards, only one using logic and the other feeling. I don't see how one is so different from another that it warrants "this group is more XYZ" than the other.

[Blackwater]

Maybe so, CzeCze, but I don't get it. You're basically saying that because another thread with a different premise that I did not even read was not to your taste I shouldn't post my inquiry now?