Talk:ENFP

message: I'm not sure that this should be just a redirect. I've commented about this on the MBTI talk page and called for consistency in the way we treat the different types. They should really either all be articles (or stubs until more detailed articles get written) or else they should all redirect to the MBTI page. Given that ISTP and INFJ already have articles about them I don't see why the same can't be true of other types. Jammycakes 21:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, too. The article should not be deleted. JKW 14:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I just deleted the descriptions on all of these personality types.  A lot of them were copyvios from different sources, several of them being from http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/ , where they may or may not have been copied from other locations.  Nonetheless, the three theories of MBTI, Keirsey Temperaments, and Socionics are quite different and require different descriptions of types, functions, relations, and other concepts.  Socionics especially differs from the other two.  The three theories should all be expanded upon in Wikipedia, but it is impossible to do this while there is a conglomeration of these three theories and they are treated as one and the same. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type Descriptions 

message: Added famous people and a reference for the same section.
--Thehumuslayer (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Notable ENFPs section is not based on fact. It is pure speculation and should be removed. ThreeOfCups (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Moved this section under Characteristics and  used only Keirsey examples. Keirsey's theory is based on behavior, which  is observable, while the MBTI is based on cognitive functions, that is,  how people prefer to use their minds. It is unethical for MBTI  practitioners to speculate about a person's type according to the  principle of "own best fit." Moreover, MBTI practitioner websites are  grossly inconsistent in their conclusions. This sort of unencyclopedic  speculation has no place on Wikipedia. ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed anyway. I came here after seeing that Slate said it was Obama's type. Two conditions are needed for this to be cogent, given Jungian types + BM extensions. One the subject has to have taken the instrument and divulged the result. Two, the subject should not have had much knowledge of it before hand. I would be more dismissive of my own INTJ had I not learned the associated characteristics after taking it Relatively few famous people will be satisfying even the first one.. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable ENFPs 

message: I created templates for text that's the same across all 16 type articles to eliminate the hours of work it takes to update the same text 16 times. This is a recommended use for templates according to Wikipedia policy WM:TEMP. 
To edit the templates: 
1. Click the Edit link on the section of the article you want to change. 
2. Select and copy the title of the template page (the text between the double braces). 
3. Paste the copied text into the Wikipedia search box and press Go (not Search). 
This will take you to the template. Make sure that the changes you make to the templates are appropriate for all 16 type articles! (INFJ, ESTP, etc.) ThreeOfCups (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: The MBTI, Keirsey Temperament Sorter, and related Jung Typology assessments use the original spelling, Extraversion, rather than the modern corruption, Extroversion. In this context, Extraversion is jargon and should be thus spelled. ThreeOfCups (talk) 15:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of Extraversion 

message: For a discussion about the logo and border color, see Talk:Myers-Briggs Type Indicator#Remove or keep the fancy logos from the articles?. Please don't make a significant change to the logo or border color without discussing it there first. ThreeOfCups (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo and border color 

message: MBTI is not an academically respected system. So editors expecting a reference to Professor X at the University of Z proposing that Alicia Silverstone is an ENFP will not find one. MBTI is utilised, and I don't mean this negatively, by amateurs. When I say that Alicia Silverstone is widely typed as ENFP, I am not saying that she actually is ENFP, I am just saying that it is a common typing. Farrtj (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I did not see this comment before adding the discussion below (which still stands). - SummerPhD (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  MBTI 

message: Two claims are being made that are problematic. A"Some practitioners have speculated that Alicia Silverstone is an ENFP." and  B"However, according to the guidelines for the ethical use of the MBTI, only those taking the assessment can identify their own best fit."
A presents speculative information about a living person based on an unreliable source (which cites a blog for the information. Please see WP:BLP. "Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (The second sentence basically claims the material is questionable...)
B is synthesis. In the current context, it is used to undermine the claim about Silverstone, though the source itself does not mention Silverstone. Additionally, it implies that the "practitioners" mentioned (especially the one cited) are violating ethical guidelines.
Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well look at my rewording. I think that it improves the article immensely to list a probable example of a ENFP. AS exemplifies the ENFP personality. And it is hardly a libel to claim that she has been suggested as an ENFP. You are misappropriating the nature of the WP:BLP guidelines in order to try to win your petty argument. You are not helping Wikipedia. You are putting people off from editing Wikipedia. Go improve an article, instead of wasting my time. Farrtj (talk) 22:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there is no source at all, reliable or otherwise. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How many sources would you like? One, or five? Farrtj (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: One reliable one would do. We don't have that yet. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Please bear in mind that MBTI is a speculative exercise. Farrtj (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Immaterial to this discussion. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What I'm saying is, how good do you want a source speculating on someone's MBTI type to be? Farrtj (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

text: What are you talking about? There's been a good one there for a while, go look. Farrtj (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Now there is a "source", there is not a reliable source, one with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (please see WP:IRS). Additionally, the vaguely worded claim (in passive voice) is that "It has been speculated that Alicia Silverstone is an ENFP." The source says Silverstone is an ENFP or an "iconic celebrity" for the type. The source unreliably states that she is and ENFP. (Before you head there, it does not demonstrate that sites/practitioners/blogs/whatevers speculate/claim/state/whatever that she is, it shows that some random site says she is, a trivial claim given the source cited. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alicia Silverstone 

message: The other recreational pseudo-psychology systems Socionics and Enneagram of Personality have only a single article. In the meantime it would be beneficial to remove the references of "notable persons of this personality type" seeing as the Myers–Briggs_Type_Indicator is make-believe. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 02:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce to one article 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects and a new hatnote.  Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[Talk:Myers–Briggs Type Indicator#Redirects and a new hatnote]]