By Boye Akinwande

Many ENFJs get mistaken for INFJs if they are either socially shy or reserved, or if they are pensive, academic, and intellectual. Similarly, some ENFJs looking into typology mistype themselves as INFJs for the same reason, or walk away from typology altogether, since many of the ENFJ descriptions imply that ENFJs are all about the social arena, with little to no internal life.

To get some counter perspectives on this, I recommend that you check out either the admins’ basic ENFJ portrait, or Hannah Strachan’s video where she offers a nuanced commentary on Fe.

Now in theory, it might also be true that some INFJs who are socially soothing, charismatic, and assertive would then mistype themselves as ENFJs. But that doesn’t fit with my experience of the field. Though we have tried to add nuance to typology, showing how all types can have specific capabilities and shine, the majority of the field is still stuck in some biases, where it’s cooler to be introverted than extroverted; cooler to be intuitive than sensing.

So as I have already hinted, ENFJs can be socially shy and reserved as well as academic and intellectual. In the same way, INFJs can come across as socially active and more interested in people than in principles and ideas – they are not all intellectually minded.

While both INFJs and ENFJs tend to be holistic and often arrive at profound insights in relation to human beings and the social order, one could say that ENFJs are more often inclined to be concerned with that social order for its own sake, and with applying their insights to this order instead of just thinking of them in a vacuum. The contrast between Pythagoras, who started his own social movement – his own community of like-minded people – intent on making a difference in the world, and Plato, who mostly just reflected and refined his ideas, is apt here. As Plato even says of himself in one place:

“As a young man I reflected a lot about how society could be improved … but I refrained from action.”

That is to say, ENFJs, being extroverted judgers, will more often take an interest in applying the insights they are dealing with directly to their audience, indeed, to the specific situation at hand. They are, in other words, more prescriptive than INFJs and may, like the Buddha does in the Pali Canon, effortlessly adapt their terminology, intellectual level and frames of reference to where the audience is, so that their teachings will be effective.

Now, if we turn to INFJs, they are of course also typically socially oriented, mindful of people and may even need people as a medium to recognize certain intellectual truths, just like ENFJs do. On the other hand, since INFJs have tertiary introverted thinking, that is, they are able to direct it whereas it remains repressed in ENFJs, this means that INFJs will typically have more of an interest in building up their intellectual system for its own sake. One could perhaps compare the eternal and perennial flavor of Plato’s system with the teachings of the Buddha, which were skillfully adapted to the social context of his day. Indeed, one of the most important facets of the Buddha’s teachings, and one that is often overlooked, is that he stressed that his teachings were nothing ‘in themselves’ – they were solely means to ‘reach the other shore,’ that is, to escape the dissatisfactions of empirical existence and achieve nirvana. That is to say, his teachings were only valuable so long as they served a clear function; only so long as concrete people could actually benefit from them.

Another difference is that INFJs, being introverted perception dominants, will more often appear detached – indeed, when engaged in their thinking role, they can seem cold and distant (which is probably one reason why many people think, or used to think, that Plato was an INTJ or INTP type).

By contrast, even when ENFJs are solitary and detached, such as perhaps Erasmus and Goethe, they always still seem to have a sense of presence about them, as an old friend speaking directly to us and looking us in the eye. Goethe is perhaps the best example of this elevated-yet-present inclination in ENFJs: Looking at his accomplishments, though he was clearly one of the most intelligent people who ever lived, his thoughts are rarely forbidding and hard to follow, the way Plato’s might be. On the contrary, he speaks in a welcoming and cordial manner, always genuinely mindful of his audience and the overall feeling-tone of his expressions. He would not talk down to us or hide behind mystical utterances, for as he himself says:

“It [is] natural to me to empathize with the condition of others [and to] sympathize with it with pleasure.”


  1. It’s hard to type the Buddha, because while we can isolate some traits, and they all seem to point to NFJ, the sources also contradict each other a lot, way more than with the PreSocratics. So INFJ or ENFJ could both make sense for the Buddha, depending on where the stress is placed. A good portrait of the Buddha as someone we’d type ENFJ can be found in professor Gombrich’s work.

    That the Buddha must have had well-developed Ti is a common argument. That’s why you should read Gombrich if you haven’t already. He makes a good case for how many of the things that are today thought of as philosophical analyses by the Buddha were actually appropriations of Brahmin and Jain tropes, adapted to take his audience and followers where he felt he needed to go. Also, a lot of the Buddhist Ti-style philosophy and analysis of phenomena is not the Buddha’s but attempts to reify his teaching into a coherent system, by intellectual monks. This latter process we know more about and they seem to have had very well-developed Ti (and Ne).

  2. Interesting point about the Buddha. I had him as INTP, but after reading this I would have to say INFJ (hard to see ENFJ). Do you have any speculative typings for today’s prominent monks? I would type Ajahn Brahm ENTP, Thanisarro Bhikkhu INTP and Yuttadhammo INFJ. Perhaps you guys could also look into Peter Ralston – a very interesting character who I can’t quite pin down (if I had to choose one type, I’d go with ENTP).

  3. We might just have a few of those, but we need to tend to our Hollywood audience first =)

  4. I find this association between the ENFJ and INFJ very interesting. After reading IDRLab’s explanation of the Aristotelian viewpoint of function axes, I noticed that many online sources utilize this perspective (unwittingly) to discern one’s dominant cognitive process (e.g., a shy NFJ would undoubtably be an Inteovert because of his appearance). However, I understand from this site and my reading of Psychological Types by Jung that an extrovert may very well be quiet and socially uncomfortable. Likewise, an introvert might be quite social and expressive. I think this goes against a lot of “common sense” in some people’s perspective. Which makes sense. But, the psychodynamic view is so much deeper and requires so much more study to formally arrive at one’s type! For myself, I’ve always typed out as INFJ. I thoroughly resonate with it and have never questioned it much. However, IDRLabs’ type test always captures me as INFJ, and their functions test always labels me as an Fe dominant. I grew up with social phobia (which I have now cured). Therefore, I relate to the description of the Avoidant Personality Style (which somewhat correlated to ENFJ). Could I possibly be a shy ENFJ who fears social rejection and actually not an introvert at all? I do spend a lot of time alone, pondering before responding, and studying concepts for hours on end. The older I get the more I see my Fe at use in healthy ways. Is this due to my personal growth as an INFJ, or as a true ENFJ who’s functions are have surfaced in and out throughout the years? If I take the Aristotelian view, then I may fit better as an Introvert (per Pareto’s Principle). However, the Psychoanayltic view may allow me to fit as an Extrovert. Am I off here? What do you guys think? It would be shocking to my worldview to no longer be an introvert, but I’m open to the idea. I relate to ENFJs a lot too.

  5. lukaswithak93, I am a more introspective ENFJ and I have toyed with the idea I might be an INFJ, but always ended up coming back to ENFJ for a couple of reasons. 1) I feel the need to manifest all my “intuitions”, insights, and ponderings to somebody or they don’t even seem valid. I think the INFJ may have a strong desire to broadcast their thoughts as well, but it is always secondary and they are completely comfortable thinking for the sake of thinking and take more joy in coming up with new views than with the actual communication. 2) The placement of Ti and Se (as stated in the article) make a big difference between these types. The most obvious manifestation I find that is that even the very “Fe” INFJ’s I know have a far easier time making personal boundaries for themselves than I do. In turn, though I may experience problems stemming from low Se, I do wield it in a more sophisticated manner. The most obvious example that comes to me is the way I dress. I like to look good whenever possible and enjoy putting together attractive outfits. INFJ women I know will be very all or nothing. They also will put their Ni vision over what actually looks good on them. I will see an INFJ who wears a very stylish dress, but the colors or wrong and it doesn’t flatter her at all . I would suggest truly comparing your Ti and Se, seeing which you have more trouble with as well as which one you find more important (i.e. your ultimate goal).

Comments are closed.