Enneagram Type Synopses and Foci of Attention - Page 2

Enneagram Type Synopses and Foci of Attention

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 55
Thank Tree135Thanks

This is a discussion on Enneagram Type Synopses and Foci of Attention within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; yeah, i don't think i want to be a 6 anymore. how do i go about changing this?...

  1. #11

    yeah, i don't think i want to be a 6 anymore. how do i go about changing this?

  2. #12

    I'm a bit confused about this (Type 5 - Observers):
    • Confusing spiritual nonattachment with the need to detach from emotional pain.
    What exactly is meant by "spiritual" nonattachment?

    Is that supposed to be something like the feeling of religiosity that type fives are generally not attached to?
    But then how are these types confusing their spiritual/"I believe in Gaia/God/Something" nonattachment with their need to detach from emotional pain?

    Is it supposed to mean that Type fives don't want to believe/attach themselves to something spiritual, because they really don't want to open themselves up to the possibility of emotional pain (which the spiritual attachment apparently might lead to)??

    I'm really confused about this point, mainly because I don't believe this could be what this really means and I think I'm just missing the right interpretation.
    Does anybody have an idea?

  3. #13

    awesome
    MBTI Enthusiast thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #14

    The description of Enneagram 7 fits me well.

    What does this mean? "Fearing types who move forward into friendly contact with people." Yeah, I always take off running when someone approaches me in a friendly manner. :D

    The only problem I have with the description is that it fits N's much more closely than S's.
    MBTI Enthusiast and Ambivalent thanked this post.

  6. #15

    Quote Originally Posted by diMaggio View Post
    I'm a bit confused about this (Type 5 - Observers):

    Confusing spiritual nonattachment with the need to detach from emotional pain.
    What exactly is meant by "spiritual" nonattachment?

    Is that supposed to be something like the feeling of religiosity that type fives are generally not attached to?
    But then how are these types confusing their spiritual/"I believe in Gaia/God/Something" nonattachment with their need to detach from emotional pain?

    Is it supposed to mean that Type fives don't want to believe/attach themselves to something spiritual, because they really don't want to open themselves up to the possibility of emotional pain (which the spiritual attachment apparently might lead to)??

    I'm really confused about this point, mainly because I don't believe this could be what this really means and I think I'm just missing the right interpretation.
    Does anybody have an idea?
    I don't think it has anything to do with religion or anything like that. I believe it means 5s tend to not attach their true spirit to things. They stay detached from their emotions, etc., naturally. They often pride themselves on the ability to do this, but the quote is saying that it's actually a method of detaching from emotional pain.

    That's my take on it, I could be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow View Post
    The description of Enneagram 7 fits me well.

    What does this mean? "Fearing types who move forward into friendly contact with people." Yeah, I always take off running when someone approaches me in a friendly manner. :D
    Haha, yeah I didn't understand that one either at first, but I realized I was reading it wrong. A rephrase would be: "Type 7s are types who are fearful and as a result, move forward into friendly contact with people."

    Also, Airy gives a good explanation:

    Quote Originally Posted by Airy View Post
    I'm pretty certain I'm 7 (likely 9 fix) and I can answer this! Imagine you're at a massive family gathering with no one you really know and no real interest to get to know them. You're normally more reserved and would rather be at home. But as soon as someone comes over you're all smiles and show them a very extroverted and likable side. Much more engaging and warm than you would normally be to a stranger. That's charming them because its the easy way out. Don't want to appear snobby and have negative consequences right (fear type afterall). You reach out and charm cuz its safer.
    Out0fAmmo, luemb, Meadow and 1 others thanked this post.

  7. #16

    Quote Originally Posted by MBTI Enthusiast View Post
    Haha, yeah I didn't understand that one either at first, but I realized I was reading it wrong. A rephrase would be: "Type 7s are types who are fearful and as a result, move forward into friendly contact with people."

    Also, Airy gives a good explanation:
    That's funny! I saw a verb, not an adjective. It's like that picture where you either see a pretty young woman or an old hag. :D Thanks! and for quote.
    MBTI Enthusiast thanked this post.

  8. #17

    Bolding what I relate to

    Quote Originally Posted by MBTI Enthusiast View Post
    Nine: The Mediator
    Merging with loved ones, losing boundaries. Taking on their point of view. Becoming stubborn instead of getting angry. Sitting on the fence. “I didn’t say no, but I’m not sure I agree with you.” Nines can relate to all sides of an argument, which derails their own agenda. “Yes” means “Yes, I’m reflecting your opinion.” “Maybe” possibly could mean “No.” At its best, the merging habit offers genuine support. As a protective measure, adopting many points of view cushions commitment to any one of them.

    Focus of Attention
    • Replacing essential needs with unessential substitutes.
    • Comforting self with unessential pleasures. Avoiding conflict.
    • Ambivalence about personal decisions. “Do I agree or disagree?” Seeing all sides of the question. Decisions are easy when not personally loaded, for example, emergency actions or political opinions.
    • Postponing change by repeating familiar solutions. Acting through habit. Ritualism. There’s plenty of time. It can wait until tomorrow.
    • Hard to initiate change. Easier to know what you don’t want than what you do.
    • Can’t say no. Hard to separate. Hard to be the one to go.
    • Damping physical energy and anger. Diverting energy to trivia. Delayed reaction time for anger. Passive aggression. Anger equals separation.
    • Control by going stubborn. Do nothing. Wait it out. Control by using time. Wait some more.
    • Paying attention to other people’s agendas, which leads to:
      Difficulty in forming a personal position, but also develops:
      The ability to recognize and support what is essential to other people’s lives.
    MBTI Enthusiast thanked this post.

  9. #18

    Sense it now does make

    Quote Originally Posted by MBTI Enthusiast View Post
    I don't think it has anything to do with religion or anything like that. I believe it means 5s tend to not attach their true spirit to things. They stay detached from their emotions, etc., naturally. They often pride themselves on the ability to do this, but the quote is saying that it's actually a method of detaching from emotional pain.

    That's my take on it, I could be wrong.
    During my research to get some illumination about the meaning behind that sentence, I stumbled upon a study guide for an "Enneagram Workshop" by Helen Palmer. That guide seems to be the source of that sentence.

    Within that guide on page 7 "Type Five: The Observer" it says:
    Confuses spiritual nonattachment with the need to detach from emotional involvement.
    (emphasis mine)

    So originally it said "emotional involvement", not "emotional pain".
    It seems that over the course of quoting and re-quoting on many places through-out the internet, this sentence transformed "involvement" into "pain". Kind of as in the game telephone (or grapevine/chinese whispers/pass the message/etc.).

    When I first read the pain-version, it just absolutely didn't ring true for me. I tried to find some truth in it via a combination of intro- and retrospection, but it didn't click with me.
    I then though that, well, though I am a type 5 the mind is not as clear cut as that and this was probably just another point in case.
    But still, I was curious where this sentence came from, because it just didn't make sense to me and I thought the source might enlighten me a bit more.
    So when I found the original version from Helen Palmer, it lifted the fog to a substantial degree.^^
    Because comparing spiritual nonattachment with the need to detach from emotional involvement makes a bit more sense to me than comparing it with the need to detach from emotional pain (at least not how I think about a stereotypical type 5).

    The need to detach from emotional involvement -> Yes, that I can find to be true sometimes for varying reasons.
    But the need to detach from emotional pain is definitely not one of them.

    Well, that's how it is for me at least.
    Nonetheless, thanks for your attempt in trying to help me understand, much appreciated!

  10. #19

    Quote Originally Posted by diMaggio View Post
    So originally it said "emotional involvement", not "emotional pain".
    It seems that over the course of quoting and re-quoting on many places through-out the internet, this sentence transformed "involvement" into "pain". Kind of as in the game telephone (or grapevine/chinese whispers/pass the message/etc.).
    Well, these are actually direct from the source since they were typed straight out of a book Helen Palmer wrote. But I'm glad you could find the interpretation that rings true with you.
    Out0fAmmo and diMaggio thanked this post.

  11. #20

    Quote Originally Posted by MBTI Enthusiast View Post
    Well, these are actually direct from the source since they were typed straight out of a book Helen Palmer wrote. But I'm glad you could find the interpretation that rings true with you.
    Lol, really? Hmm, ok I guess she must've changed it herself then over the years.
    May I ask from when the book is? If it's newer than what I found then I'd be interested to get a copy and try to find out why she changed that. You could say it's a trivial matter, but once I'm hooked on something like this, I can't easily let go until I understand the reason for it.
    Thanks in advance! :)

    EDIT: Nevermind, I amazon'ed it just now and found out it first appeared in 1995, the same year, which puzzles me even more. Now I've got to get a copy, my enneagram-interest has rekindled.^^
    MBTI Enthusiast thanked this post.


     
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Enneagram Type 5] Dear [Enneagram Type], Sincerely [Enneagram Type]
    By Curiously in forum Type 5 Forum - The Investigator
    Replies: 449
    Last Post: 01-14-2016, 11:00 PM
  2. [Enneagram Type 6] Dear [Enneagram type], ... sincerely [Enneagram type]
    By Havok in forum Type 6 Forum - The Loyalist
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-03-2014, 02:04 PM
  3. How Different Enneagram Types Pay Attention
    By cyamitide in forum Enneagram Personality Theory Forum
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-30-2013, 09:53 PM
  4. [ENTJ] Ni and Your Life's Foci
    By Benja in forum ENTJ Forum - The Executives
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-02-2012, 06:52 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:10 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0