# Why Enneagram 6 is nonsense:



## Aluminum Frost

1. You can relate to the description completely or not at all and still be a 6, or you can fall anywhere in the middle of two extremes. Since E6 has aspects of phobic and counter-phobic.

2. It's really just the fight or flight response, something everyone has.

3. You may not be anxious, anxiety may not run your life. But apparently some 6s are unaware that they're anxious. No way to prove or disprove this. It's as baseless as "internalized misogyny".

4. I've met sixes who don't relate to it much, it just seems to be an all encompassing type. A safety net if no type really fits you. 

5. They're supposed to be oriented to authority and groups, support and guidance. But many so called sixes outright reject these things or it's not something they care about or think about.

6. It has a negative connotation. They're viewed as inferior or posers when they're just being themselves. What I mean is people are typed as 6 if they're a pseudo-intellectual (fake 5) or a wannabe tough guy (fake 8). They can't be the real deal, if they are then they're not 6s.

7. They're treated and talked about basically like they're the enneagram 8s b*tch. It's like, don't stand up to an 8, cause even if you're right you're wrong. Cause they're an 8, you're a 6 and you will rightfully be owned. It seems this way with every type challenging an 8 but especially with 6s.

I believe if you look for support and guidance and the like then you are a 6, if that's your motivation in life. But being opposed to it or outright indifferent to it shouldn't mean you're a 6. Apply the logic used on 6 to any other type. A 5 that rejects knowledge and isn't afraid to engage with the outside world. Would they be a 5? Same with other types. So why is 6 all-encompassing when other types aren't?


----------



## smallhead

I feel it. When I finally started reading about 6s I began to believe nearly everyone was a 6, including my artistic heroes, incredible writers, friends, MYSELF, etc. What you say is totally true that the 6 is kind of characterized as the "human" who has either totally normal or very exceptional struggles in life. In fact, I believe the 6 is a catch-all. It's incredibly frustrating.

And yet, there are people in my life who fit the description of the 6 remarkably well. It is a type that is rife with internal challenges, but it also has an enormous potential to realize their inner courage.


----------



## VagrantFarce

When you meet one, you get it.

Fundamentally, they're a fear / mind type, so their compulsion is to overinflate their thinking - not just their sense of danger, but their sense of powerlessness over the world around them. Mind types lose touch with the physical core of their own being, becoming reactive & fearful rather than powerful & in control.

What distinguishes this type from the other mind types is that they can't help but embody their overinflated thinking - they just put it all out there. It can create all sorts of characters on the surface, but it's all coming from the same lack of grounded being.

I worked with a prototypical 6 once - it was like watching someone drown in their own thinking. He had no ability to make his own decisions, and would essentially vomit up every thought that passed through his head, compulsively agreeing and then disagreeing with everyone he came across. He had absolutely no sense of grounded self-guidance.


----------



## Aluminum Frost

Yes, ik what it is. But that doesn't address any of what I said. I'm referring to the fact that you can somehow be a 6 without being anxious and what not according to many people, which makes no sense.


----------



## L P

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes, ik what it is. But that doesn't address any of what I said. I'm referring to the fact that you can somehow be a 6 without being anxious and what not according to many people, which makes no sense.


I don't think so, I think the whole ting about 6 is the fact that they are anxious, whether phobic or cp.

They are probably another type, or have 6 in the tritype but not as their core type. Either way, 6 is anxiety.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Why is this in the socionics forum

...Anyway, I believe the idea of someone being a 6 even if they don't feel anxiety comes about because it's your core issues are so pervasive, it's not always easy to see it for what it is, and if you live with these kind of fears all your life you start to build defenses against it that will overshadow the actual issue. This is not just the case with type 6, however.


----------



## tanstaafl28

I met Tom twice. He's a total sixes's six.


----------



## tanstaafl28

@Aluminum Frost

Did you mean to post this in the Socionics forum?


----------



## Fumetsu

Lord Pixel said:


> I don't think so, I think the whole ting about 6 is the fact that they are anxious, whether phobic or cp.
> 
> They are probably another type, or have 6 in the tritype but not as their core type. Either way, 6 is anxiety.


....and the most common type! So people who constantly talk about how no one understands what it's like to have anxiety can STFU now. I want a special dog to help me deal with everyone whinning about thier anxieties.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Aluminum Frost said:


> Yes, ik what it is. But that doesn't address any of what I said. I'm referring to the fact that you can somehow be a 6 without being anxious and what not according to many people, which makes no sense.



I'm telling you, when you REALLY meet a solid six. You'll know it. Not all sixes show their anxiety, but they probably have some.


----------



## star tripper

lol no there is a very pronounced difference between 6 and the other types. Yes, everyone can relate to 6 to an extent, but 6s take those aspects that you once related to to a whole other level. That's true of all the types -- all of them are superficially relatable to an extent, but, for example, you goddamn know a 7 when you see one.

I say this because I know quite a lot of 6s and although I relate strongly enough to 6 to have it as a wing, there is still a fundamental difference between me and the other 6s. There's a reactivity, an attachment to the outside world, constant awareness of the social system in which you reside, an undercurrent of anxiety that causes you to look to the outside to find that which unnerves you. It's different. It's active. It's fiery.

Compare Geddy Lee to Eminem. Compare Carrie Underwood to Axl Rose. Compare Katy Perry to Amy Lee. Can you really say these people could _all_ be sixes?


----------



## Aluminum Frost

tanstaafl28 said:


> @Aluminum Frost
> 
> Did you mean to post this in the Socionics forum?


nope, could've sworn I posted it in enneagram


----------



## Aluminum Frost

tanstaafl28 said:


> I'm telling you, when you REALLY meet a solid six. You'll know it. Not all sixes show their anxiety, but they probably have some.


My point though is it seems you don't really have to have any traits of 6 and people will still somehow try to argue that you're a 6. Whereas you literally have to jump through hoops if you say you're a 5 or 8 for example.


----------



## smallhead

Aluminum Frost said:


> My point though is it seems you don't really have to have any traits of 6 and people will still somehow try to argue that you're a 6. Whereas you literally have to jump through hoops if you say you're a 5 or 8 for example.


I don't think this is that complicated to understand. An 8 is someone with immense amounts of self-confidence that often stands against reason, decency, everything most people take into account before acting. A 5 is also rather particular because they often relate to and feel more comfortable among arcane thought-systems than among people, including family. On top of that, the idea of an 8 and a 5 is rather cool because they both go against the grain of basic social organization to an extent. The social component of the 6 makes them much easier for people to understand and therefore there's not a lot of questions to ask there. Contrasted with an 8, a 6's response to some threat is much more understandable than an 8's response because most everyone only has a fraction of the bravado of an 8. It makes pretty basic sense that more people would be 6s than would be 5s or 8s. I also find 7s to be quite eccentric and rare.

To look at some other types, I don't know a lot of people who question you to death if you say you're a 2, 3, or a 9.


----------



## Malandro

That's like saying enneagram 7 is nonsense because everyone likes to have fun. 

The anxiety is supposed to be your core, not flight or fight.


----------



## L P

Fumetsu said:


> ....and the most common type! So people who constantly talk about how no one understands what it's like to have anxiety can STFU now. I want a special dog to help me deal with everyone whinning about thier anxieties.


Lol, the irony here is priceless lol.


----------



## Malandro

Aluminum Frost said:


> My point though is it seems you don't really have to have any traits of 6 and people will still somehow try to argue that you're a 6. Whereas you literally have to jump through hoops if you say you're a 5 or 8 for example.


I still remember the time someone tried to type me as a so 6 lol

Tbf, people can only go off what you say because they don't know you face to face.


----------



## Tamehagane

This would be a lot more convincing coming from, y'know, an actual type 6.

Amateur typing is already known for being mostly bs. I think what you really mean is that most people's understanding of type 6 is lacking, including your own.


----------



## Catwalk

I also thought, "Type 5" was nothing but an untreated case of (psychosis) - and Type 8 was simply dealing with "_anger mangement_," issues.

It appears you have listed "symptoms," (re: side-effects), via susceptibility (vulnerabilities) or a predisposition to said malfunctions based off Enneagram type: "_Type 6 is nothing but 'flight/fight' response_," - is only a subset of Type 6 - expanding on what "Type 6" _actually is_. It seem(s) you are only referring to the Temptation-side effects and conflicts of the basic Enneagram fear and the basic Enneagram desires (re: Type 6), which would understandably will cause a great deal of "anxiety".

Numbers: (4, 6, 7) in (Post #1) are simply rants, although I am confused as to why than anything presented is an overall demonstration [or at least calls into question 'The enneagram type 6'] - and places it on the spotlight for intellectual scrunity, so we can investigate why_ "Type 6" is nonsense_.


----------



## tanstaafl28

@star tripper

Is it true? You're an ENTP 5w6 like me?


----------



## BranchMonkey

I know a six who doesn't display anxiety very often because she surrounds herself with people who will protect her; goes to a firing range regularly; is second in command to forceful men; has all her ducks in a row: 

Money on hand, large savings account and rental properties, credit cards, weapons, Triple A, vehicles (three at least), belongs to a fundamentalist church and spends almost all her time involved one way or another with it, and yet still, her fearfulness shows (to me, anyway). 

She is only OK if she has all the above, and more, for a false sense (or enough sense) of security. Strip any of that away, and the fear comes out, e.g. during a Bible study last year when my husband was going deep into JOB (I helped him prepare for it, two hours every week) in a way she was unaccustomed to. 

When we got to JOB speaking about going down to Shoal, she turned to me, vulnerable as a young child and said, 'But that doesn't really exist does it?'

I felt compassion for her, treated her as she was displaying, like a child in need of reassurance, because she really couldn't cope with nor understand the concept of people's conceptual framework evolving over time, any more than she could deal with the subject of evolution in general, so I said, quietly, "No, it doesn't," and she immediately relaxed.

She is afraid of all sorts of groups: 

Muslims, Masons, Buddhists, gays... and she copes by 1) Staying away from anyone who belongs to those (and many other groups she fears) and spending most of her time with like-minded persons.

This is an example of how some could come across 6s who don't seem anxious and yet, they are anxious.

And of course there are many other types who have anxiety problems, even diagnosed with general or acute anxiety because of, say, early childhood traumas, which doesn't change a 3 into a 6 but certain similarities are there--just not so all-encompassing.


----------



## Asd456

I have no idea what's going on with this thread. Anxiety is not limited to type 6; in fact, I know a few 7's, 5's, 2's, and 9's with more visible anxiety compared to some 6's. That said, as part of the head triad (5, 6, 7) we have a distinct relationship with anxiety and a key distinction for type 6 is anticipatory anxiety.


----------



## star tripper

tanstaafl28 said:


> @star tripper
> 
> Is it true? You're an ENTP 5w6 like me?


Indubitably! It took me a while to realize because I always saw 5s as autistic recluses. Like JD Salinger on adderall.

Edit: 5w6 > 5w4, fistbump!


----------



## d e c a d e n t

star tripper said:


> Indubitably! It took me a while to realize because I always saw 5s as autistic recluses. Like JD Salinger on adderall.


How did you realize you were one after all?


----------



## tanstaafl28

star tripper said:


> Indubitably! It took me a while to realize because I always saw 5s as autistic recluses. Like JD Salinger on adderall.
> 
> Edit: 5w6 > 5w4, fistbump!


Hell no! I organized a party to a local Ocktoberfest last weekend! (16 people in the group). We had a blast. The end of the night was topped off by a really great 80's cover band. I even served in the U.S. Navy.


----------



## star tripper

Remnants said:


> How did you realize you were one after all?


My mom said I was exactly like the protagonist from The Bridge, and then a few weeks later, they revealed she was an Aspie.

For those it might help, though, it was just stupid to label me anything other than a head type, and I had to stop and ask myself what I perceived as my biggest obstacle in myself, what were my compulsions, what was wrong with me. And though I am rather unorthodox for a 5 (I idolize rock n roll for example), the framework in which my compulsions operated reflected 5's (not to mention 8 was very obviously where I integrate as I fair worship Socionics Se). As my best friend posited, "You're like Jeff Winger's and Abed Nadir's lovechild who grew up in the wild west."


----------



## d e c a d e n t

star tripper said:


> My mom said I was exactly like the protagonist from The Bridge, and then a few weeks later, they revealed she was an Aspie.
> 
> For those it might help, though, it was just stupid to label me anything other than a head type, and I had to stop and ask myself what I perceived as my biggest obstacle in myself, what were my compulsions, what was wrong with me. And though I am rather unorthodox for a 5 (I idolize rock n roll for example), the framework in which my compulsions operated reflected 5's (not to mention 8 was very obviously where I integrate as I fair worship Socionics Se). *As my best friend posited, "You're like Jeff Winger's and Abed Nadir's lovechild who grew up in the wild west."*


Well now.

No idea about The Bridge, though.

(Wouldn't say I idealize Se myself, but I do find it amusing that you made a thread asking for Alpha/Delta shows that aren't boring.)


----------



## FlaviaGemina

I know what you're up to! This thread is out to get me! Bring it on!


----------



## BranchMonkey

FlaviaGemina said:


> I know what you're up to! This thread is out to get me! Bring it on!


I took your gender roles survey; I'm on your side. (⊙.⊙(☉̃ₒ☉)⊙.⊙)


----------



## star tripper

Remnants said:


> Well now.
> 
> No idea about The Bridge, though.
> 
> (Wouldn't say I idealize Se myself, but I do find it amusing that you made a thread asking for Alpha/Delta shows that aren't boring.)


I stand by that thread. Alpha/Delta shows can eat a dick.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

star tripper said:


> I stand by that thread. Alpha/Delta shows can eat a dick.


Well, I feel like _most _shows are pretty boring, but sometimes I consider if I should try actually watching some before making up my mind about that.


----------



## angelfish

Haha, what an odd thread! Entertaining! 

I can try to add a few 6-y thoughts, anyway.

All people utilize all 9 defense mechanisms on the Enneagram, so while 6's fight-flight strategy is particularly recognizable (though perhaps more accurately described for 6s as ruminate and defend), it is not really particularly notable, no more so than 2's tend-and-befriendish behavior. But, being on the pragmatic or attachment triad (the "base triangle") like 9 and 3, type 6 has some "everyman" qualities to it. 6s tend to fit in and get along well enough in the world; we tend to accept and go along with our material existence. We also find blending in to be a strategy - it's easier not to get in trouble if you're neither too great nor too terrible, too extreme or too bland. So it is not necessarily a surprise for anyone to find it a "catch-all" type - entertainingly enough it is part of 6's defense mechanism that we are relatable. 

If a 6 themself says they don't relate to the type, one of two things could be going on: (1) they are questioning their type - which - would not necessarily be surprising, as it is said 9s, 3s, and 6s (everyman again!) have the hardest times identifying their types; or (2) they are not relating to the descriptions. All type descriptions have some kind of perspective skew, and at least to me I have generally found most 6 descriptions skewed towards 6w7, towards xSxJs, and towards sp-first - similarly I tend to feel that 2 descriptions tend to be FJ and soc-first skewed; 9 descriptions tend to be IxxP-skewed, etc. Alternatively - the Enneagram types simply don't describe the person in question well. 

That said, a few thoughts on the internal experience of being a 6: the push-pull energy is inherent to 6 much the way it is also inherent for sx types to be hot/cold. Because we fundamentally struggle with our internal confidence, we don't have a good "gauge" for where we stand with external entities, and so we always feel like our position is either too much or not enough, and we often oscillate between the two. For example, today I won a prize at work, and I felt like I was a bit awkward/unsure when I went to receive it - so now I can't decide whether I should write the staff who gave it to me a thank you note or if that is overkill since I already shook their hands and talked for a bit with them. Do you see what I mean? I feel like what I am considering is not enough or maybe too much at the same time. In the same way, we can have oscillating attitudes towards authority, groups, support, guidance, etc. One moment we can feel we are not invested enough and the next we can feel like we are too far in. Say the fuel level sensor in your car was a 6... it wouldn't know what the right level of fuel should be... so it'd always be going off when the fuel dropped a bit because you're leaned forward on a downward slope and it might also go off if you were driving up a hill and it sensed you had "too much" fuel in the tank. And - yes - it is possible to have anxiety and not recognize it as fear. I tend to process it as anger first personally. Again, 6's problem is with inner knowing. It can take us a while... or forever... we are indecisive!

Lastly, as for negative connotations and 8s, negative stereotypes are everywhere for everyone. 6s can be seen as "posers" or "inferiors" but we can also be seen as hard-working, dedicated, conscientious, and amiable. I worked for a while with an 8 boss and have a 8 friend and I can easily say there are some ways that 8s best 6s but there are also a number of reasons I prefer being a 6 - like being more cooperative, not feeling like the world is against me, being more able to empathize, and having some softness in the way I relate, which I find pleasing. I have some 9w8 in me and while 8 is very formidable I think that sometimes it can be a more hurtful thing than a helpful one. In the end 6 and 8 are only any more valuable than one another if you choose to see one as such. 

Anyway, I hope that helps to clear a few things up, coming from someone who took around 3 or 4 years to figure out she was a 6. I ran the gamut of possibilities first - 7w6, 4w3, 4w3, 9w8 - before it dawned on me. 



Asd456 said:


> a key distinction for type 6 is anticipatory anxiety.


Truly, this is 6 in a nutshell.


----------



## FlaviaGemina

angelfish said:


> If a 6 themself says they don't relate to the type, one of two things could be going on: (1) they are questioning their type - which - would not necessarily be surprising, as it is said 9s, 3s, and 6s (everyman again!) have the hardest times identifying their types; or (2) they are not relating to the descriptions. All type descriptions have some kind of perspective skew, and at least to me I have generally found most 6 descriptions skewed towards 6w7, towards xSxJs, and towards sp-first - similarly I tend to feel that 2 descriptions tend to be FJ and soc-first skewed; 9 descriptions tend to be IxxP-skewed, etc. Alternatively - the Enneagram types simply don't describe the person in question well.
> 
> .


This is so true. I'm INTJ/ INTp , 6w5 cp so/sx. Not too sure about the wing, though.
It took me years to figure out my type because a lot of 6 descriptions sound like the typical ISFJ. Especially the ones in nice, affirming books that don't look at the unhealthy side of types. 
A lot of the descriptions of "security" sound very sp and I hardly relate to that at all. I need a _psychologically_ safe and stable environment. If I could choose between living in a palace full of nutters or in poverty but surrounded by supportive people, I'd go for the latter. 
When I take a test, I invariably come out as 5, which I don't identify with. I know some real fives and while I get some of them, I'm not like them. I simply don't have their levels of retentiveness and those fives themselves describe me as "friendly" or having a lot of "energy". 
People on here have typed me as a 7 and that made sense for a while, but I'm just not.

As for anxiety and not being aware of it: when I was younger I always had this baseline anxiety caused by being an overachiever. I was an overachiever because I wanted to impress authorities. Now I actually get panic attacks but the baseline anxiety is completely gone because I'm developing my own value system rather than going by outward criteria. As soon as the baseline anxiety stopped, I realized for the first time that I used to have it. While I had it, I never noticed it at all, it just made me feel 'energized'. It wasn't necessarily a negative, fearful feeling, more like a constant feeling of "eustress" (vs. distress) that motivated me. But it motivated me to achieve goals that others had chosen for me. I doubt I could go on experiencing this constant 'stress' for every day of my life without burning out, even if it wasn't a negative feeling.


----------



## Gilead

Type being misunderstood does not indicate it being "nonsense" - although the immensive focus on p/cp when it comes to this specific type is worth criticism.

Afaik, the reason 6 can be ambiguous is because it is fundamentally about lack of certainty and clarity as to what is to come - this makes it oscillate between the opposites. A good example of this is to think of its place between 5 and 7. All head types deal with fear. Five mistrusts and rejects the world and seeks internal security from the mind; seven is distrustful of themselves and looks outside for distractions to ease their anxiety. Sixes are in-between these states. But this could manifest in various ways, each to their own. You could say they do not trust themselves fully, nor do they trust others fully. Unlike 5 & 7, they not only _need_ to but in my opinion are fully able to achieve trust in both regards.


----------



## Asd456

angelfish said:


> All type descriptions have some kind of perspective skew, and at least to me I have generally found most 6 descriptions skewed towards 6w7, towards xSxJs, and towards sp-first - similarly I tend to feel that 2 descriptions tend to be FJ and soc-first skewed; 9 descriptions tend to be IxxP-skewed, etc.


Yes. A single type profile is not all-encompassing. There are variations (compare a type 3 Sp/Sx and type 3 So/Sx or 9 Sp/Sx and 9 So/Sp and you wonder why there's confusion). 

I do not identify with a lot of the 6 traits (I'm hardly cooperative, I reject external groups and entities, my anger is more visible and conscious compared to fear, my natural state is to project strength because I hate weakness) yet ultimately I'm a 6. Why? What drives my skepticism and aggressive stance is the fact that I dislike ambiguity and uncertainty.


----------



## L P

Asd456 said:


> a key distinction for type 6 is anticipatory anxiety.


Yes! That strange phenomenon.


----------



## Stellafera

Lord Pixel said:


> Yes! That strange phenomenon.


I think it's strange that y'all non-6s go through life without it.

Honestly, I agree with a lot of OP's observations. When "6" means everything, it means nothing. I typed up a writeup a while ago about 6 that I never posted. Might be worth mentioning:



> Life would be very uncomplicated if the logic of the world was consistent. In every situation, one would know exactly what to do, and there would be no need to make decisions, because all choices would be rigorously backed up by unbreakable principles. You'd make the right choice every time. You'd be safe and happy and at peace with the universe.
> 
> That is not, however, the world that 6 finds themselves in. 6 finds themselves in a world full of different answers. People say things and then change their minds. Information might seem correct at one point and then unfairly turn out to be wrong. "Right" and "wrong" mean different things in different situations, and everyone is arguing about which is which.
> 
> There's two options now.
> 
> The first is embracing the individuality of life.
> 
> Alternatively...
> 
> *What if everything did make sense, really, at the bottom of it?* And if you just found the correct way to think about it, you would uncover that logic? There would be no such thing as a dilemma. And then life could be so uncomplicated....


I don't think that just anyone could fit that description. It's a very specific neurosis. 6 tries to make the known sublimate the unknown, and seek to kill uncertainty with a certain sense of desperation that distinguishes them from other types. Their sense of security mostly comes from their heads, hence the term head-type: I feel at ease knowing something horrible will happen just because it means I know about it. I get more nervous hoping for a good outcome. 

But sure, yeah, we're all 6's at heart.  I have noticed that this sentiment at least has seemed to die down on PerC over the past few years. It seems like it gets a lot more airplay in older threads.


----------



## Stellafera

star tripper said:


> I stand by that thread. Alpha/Delta shows can eat a dick.


I'm a Beta and I approve of this message


----------



## L P

Stellafera said:


> I think it's strange that y'all non-6s go through life without it.
> 
> Honestly, I agree with a lot of OP's observations. When "6" means everything, it means nothing. I typed up a writeup a while ago about 6 that I never posted. Might be worth mentioning:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that just anyone could fit that description. It's a very specific neurosis. 6 tries to make the known sublimate the unknown, and seek to kill uncertainty with a certain sense of desperation that distinguishes them from other types. Their sense of security mostly comes from their heads, hence the term head-type: *I feel at ease knowing something horrible will happen just because it means I know about it. I get more nervous hoping for a good outcome. *
> 
> But sure, yeah, we're all 6's at heart.  I have noticed that this sentiment at least has seemed to die down on PerC over the past few years. It seems like it gets a lot more airplay in older threads.


That write up you did is a good descprition. It feels like life gives and takes answers away, when you thought you've figured it out you realize you haven't. The chaos of life is scary because it always feels like you'll never really figure it out and live according to your knowledge, like your knowledge is vain. I keep thinking once I've figured this out life will start. 

Also what I bolded is so true.

I have 6 in my tritype so I get it. Also that anticipatory fear is AWESOME when you finally face the fear and realize how unafraid you are and that you syked yourself up for nothing. Those moments I feel like I realize I'm alot stronger then I think I am.
@star tripper, how does one know what a Alpha/Delta show is? lol.


----------



## Dangerose

star tripper said:


> I stand by that thread. Alpha/Delta shows can eat a dick.





Stellafera said:


> I'm a Beta and I approve of this message


----------



## Handsome Dyke

Paradigm said:


> But given that (probably over) 50% of the users relates to 5 in some way (wing, fix, core), it's not exactly surprising they're not. That's what jock status gives you.


Oh, I think I get the comparison now. Type 5 is popular. This is strange to me.


----------



## smallhead

Anon Pervathon said:


> Oh, I think I get the comparison now. Type 5 is popular. This is strange to me.


Especially considering how easily and silently 5 slips into 6 in the abstract when 6 is so unpopular here.


----------



## Aluminum Frost

If you want further proof of what I'm saying then go to MbtiBase.com. Every user on the site who opposes the majority will be voted as an enneagram 6. And entries like "conservatism", "Donald Trump Supporters", "Republicans" anything right leaning will be voted mostly as 6 as well. Anything left will be voted N and mostly enneagram 4 and 5. It's a joke.


----------



## Paradigm

Aluminum Frost said:


> If you want further proof of what I'm saying then go to MbtiBase.com. Every user on the site who opposes the majority will be voted as an enneagram 6. And entries like "conservatism", "Donald Trump Supporters", "Republicans" anything right leaning will be voted mostly as 6 as well. Anything left will be voted N and mostly enneagram 4 and 5. It's a joke.


You seem to have a problem with changing your opinions. And with conflating a userbase with an _entire freaking theory._


----------



## Aluminum Frost

Paradigm said:


> You seem to have a problem with changing your opinions. And with conflating a userbase with an _entire freaking theory._


When did I change my opinion? Why would that be problematic? And how people type enneagram 6 was my point to begin with.


----------



## Paradigm

Aluminum Frost said:


> When did I change my opinion? Why would that be problematic? And how people type enneagram 6 was my point to begin with.


My actual complaint was you never change your opinion. And half of your OP was about the type itself, seemingly. I will concede I may have been wrong.

"How people type 6s" is mostly irrelevant at the end of the day. _They're_ setting themselves up for failure; let them do so, they're not contributing anything, anyway. Plus, nowadays (as discussed), PerC's Enneagram forum doesn't participate half as much in that sort of idiotic typing practice nor that idiotic talk, so your thread here is practically moot. I will admit there's a lot of users who don't understand the types, but they tend to keep to themselves where they all help each other perpetuate their speschial identity and stereotypes. It's not like this is unique to any personality system, either: MBTI has far more people doing this in comparison.

If you're really upset over the misconceptions, it's better to correct people where that talk is perpetuated (even on PerC, though you need to dig into other threads, as I said). Maybe you can teach them something. This is more like trying to correct people who don't need correction.


----------



## Aluminum Frost

This was more of a PSA I guess and I just wanted to get it off my chest cause I've been thinking of it for awhile


----------



## Paradigm

Aluminum Frost said:


> This was more of a PSA I guess and I just wanted to get it off my chest cause I've been thinking of it for awhile


And I agree with you, in regards to the perception of 6 in many places, and would have agreed with you even more strongly in the past. I still hate watching most people trying to describe 6 - among other types - because they usually get it wrong. And many type at 6 for entirely wrong reasons. But they type at other things for wrong reasons, as well. There's a lot of people interpreting things wrong. Many don't want to hear that, so it's an uphill battle and one you kinda have to choose your fights in.


----------



## 0+n*1

Stellafera said:


> What if everything did make sense, really, at the bottom of it? And if you just found the correct way to think about it, you would uncover that logic? There would be no such thing as a dilemma. And then life could be so uncomplicated....


Exactly. That's the impossible we seek. We know it but we just don't give up.


----------



## Aiwass

Well, I do agree with OP. I'm not saying 6s don't exist, but it is commonly described in a way that can be literally anything.

First, Naranjo describes type 6 as an intellectual who compensates being a coward/weak with phrenic interests. Then, he describes one of E6's "copying mechanisms" as being friendly and passive. Then, he describes a "Prussian character", the E6 who tries to hide fear with rigidity and badassness. Well, which is it? 

Type 6 is too broad of a category. Both Marilyn Monroe and Malcolm X are typed as 6s. I could create a rationalization for almost everyone being a 6.


----------



## Asd456

Aiwass said:


> Then, he describes one of E6's "copying mechanisms" as being friendly and passive.Then, he describes a "Prussian character", the E6 who tries to hide fear with rigidity and badassness. Well, which is it?


You're talking about Naranjo's subtypes at this point. They're categorically different. 

Prussian character = Social 6, friendly and passive = Self-preservation 6. 



Aiwass said:


> Type 6 is too broad of a category. Both Marilyn Monroe and Malcolm X are typed as 6s. I could create a rationalization for almost everyone being a 6.


If you look at it from Ichazo's ego types, I don't think so. It's more specific with parameters (fixations, traps, passions, virtues). 

Starting out studying the enneagram can be confusing since you have different authors with different interpretations (tritype, wing, subtype, levels of development). What was useful for me was to follow the timeline and history of the system, not the most popular and searchable parts of the system (for example, wing and tritype). 

You can also make the argument that I hear countless times, we are too complicated to be boxed in, humans are too complex, etc. That's also valid but then there's no point in learning any of these systems to begin with.


----------



## Aiwass

Asd456 said:


> You're talking about Naranjo's subtypes at this point. They're categorically different.
> 
> Prussian character = Social 6, friendly and passive = Self-preservation 6.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at it from Ichazo's ego types, I don't think so. It's more specific with parameters (fixations, traps, passions, virtues).
> 
> Starting out studying the enneagram can be confusing since you have different authors with different interpretations (tritype, wing, subtype, levels of development). What was useful for me was to follow the timeline and history of the system, not the most popular and searchable parts of the system (for example, wing and tritype).
> 
> You can also make the argument that I hear countless times, we are too complicated to be boxed in, humans are too complex, etc. That's also valid but then there's no point in learning any of these systems to begin with.


E6 is a generic, bland, catch-all umbrella term. Even if you believe in Enneagram, you can't pretend there aren't problems related to how 6s are portrayed, vs how other types are portrayed. E6's range of behavior is too broad.

Honestly, I think E6 is used as a tool to make other types feel good about themselves. You can't pretend the type isn't seen as inferior; it is. Every time people think someone is mistyped, they "accuse" them of being a 6. 

Take a look at the Enneagram Institute list of "famous people". They use Einstein and Kafka as examples of 5, lol, Plato and Aristotle as examples of 1, and Marilyn Monroe and Alex Jones as examples of 6. Can't people see how this is obviously created to put some people in the "mediocre/normie/whatever" box? 

Enneagram call 6s "everyman". Lol how fucking arrogant.


----------



## Octavarium

Asd456 said:


> You're talking about Naranjo's subtypes at this point. They're categorically different.
> 
> Prussian character = Social 6, friendly and passive = Self-preservation 6.
> 
> 
> 
> If you look at it from Ichazo's ego types, I don't think so. It's more specific with parameters (fixations, traps, passions, virtues).
> 
> Starting out studying the enneagram can be confusing since you have different authors with different interpretations (tritype, wing, subtype, levels of development). What was useful for me was to follow the timeline and history of the system, not the most popular and searchable parts of the system (for example, wing and tritype).
> 
> You can also make the argument that I hear countless times, we are too complicated to be boxed in, humans are too complex, etc. That's also valid but then there's no point in learning any of these systems to begin with.


Well yes, they’re different subtypes, but if they’re so different from each other, why should we group them together? What makes them all part of the broader category of type 6? What do those three subtype characters have in common that the others don’t? It can’t be fear, because 5 and 7 are also fear types and self-pres 1s are especially anxious. So what’s distinctive about type 6? 

You can justify typing anyone as a 6 because so many opposing traits are attributed to the type. Are you full of doubt and uncertainty? You’re a typical 6. Are you more certain than uncertain? You’re a social 6. Are you ambivalent towards authority? You’re a 6. Are you rebellious? Your a CP 6. Are you totally obedient to authority? Guess what type you are, and if you don’t think you follow an authority, all we need to do is stretch the meaning of the word ‘authority’ beyond all recognition, to encompass things like reason and rationality, so now anyone can be said to follow an ‘authority’ of some sort. If the type 6 category is as broad as that, if it can be stretched to fit anyone, it becomes completely meaningless. What would it even mean to _not_ be a 6? It’s not just forum members spreading this broad to the point of meaninglessness conception of type 6; it’s in books by major authors, included Naranjo, as @Aiwass demonstrated.


----------



## Masterpiece

The thing is, in type descriptions - yes, all types have their negatives pointed out, but the fact is the negatives of 3, 6, 9 (and 2) are portrayed in a way that's just plain undesirable; whereas the negatives of all the other types are painted with a more positive spin to them.

Say if you're a 1. You're uptight and demanding. Well, that's only because you have such high standards for yourself!
4. You're dramatic, self-absorbed, and appear ill-adapted to life. Why, that's just because you're so much more introspective and aware of your own flaws than others are!
5. You're a nerd, not to mention socially-awkward and inarticulate. But that's only because you think so deeply to the extent that others can't understand your thoughts! #nerdpride
7. You have no sense of commitment and responsibility. You gloss over heavy issues in life. BUT! That's only because you're fiercely resilient and won't let problems weigh you down! You hate commitment because you have a vast appetite for experience!
8. You're overbearing and controlling. However, the only reason why you're so is because you have so much passion and others are intimidated by your bullshit-radar! You're much too intense to handle!

Whereas, for 2? You manipulate others. Only because you want them to love you? Eck. Needy, codependent, typical ESFJ.
3? Fake, no real sense of self. And for what? Because you want fame and success? Ugh, reminds me of those substanceless movie villains. (Though this one do seem to be a bit more popular - particularly among id types who flaunt their "I get what I want" attitude)
6? Paranoid, security-oriented, routinely. That's it? Booooorrrriiiiiing.
9? Spineless, cowardly doormats who can't think for yourself. All just so you can maintain..."inner peace"? Eugh, lame.


The point is, while the enneagram as a whole sees people through negative lens, some type's negatives are just portrayed in a way that easily allows the reader to interpret them in a positive light, whilst those of other types are doomed to be just that - irrefutably-uncool flaws. Nothing more to them. This most probably accounts for why there is so much bias against certain types in the first place.


----------



## Asd456

Aiwass said:


> E6 is a generic, bland, catch-all umbrella term.


You're missing the point. I'm talking about Ichazo's ego types. If you dig deeper and research further instead of just relying on RH's Enneagram Institute, you'll realize that when it comes to the Enneagram, there are different schools of thought. 



Aiwass said:


> Even if you believe in Enneagram, you can't pretend there aren't problems related to how 6s are portrayed, vs how other types are portrayed.


6s are described unfavorably, so what? So are 9s, 3s, etc. Point of the Enneagram is that every type has their own shit to deal with. Whether or not 6s are popular or unpopular or portrayed favorably or unfavorably is irrelevant.



Aiwass said:


> E6's range of behavior is too broad.
> 
> Honestly, I think E6 is used as a tool to make other types feel good about themselves. You can't pretend the type isn't seen as inferior; it is.


Whether or not 6s have a wide range of behavior is irrelevant to Ichazo's ego types. I'm not pretending anything. 6s are seen as inferior and that's your criticism? Other types are seen as inferior as well (look at 9s). And?



Aiwass said:


> Every time people think someone is mistyped, they "accuse" them of being a 6.


How is this relevant? 



Aiwass said:


> Take a look at the Enneagram Institute list of "famous people". They use Einstein and Kafka as examples of 5, lol, Plato and Aristotle as examples of 1, and Marilyn Monroe and Alex Jones as examples of 6. Can't people see how this is obviously created to put some people in the "mediocre/normie/whatever" box?
> 
> Enneagram call 6s "everyman". Lol how fucking arrogant.


Finally we're in agreement. I don't take RH and the Enneagram Institute seriously, which goes back to my point regarding different authors with different interpretations. 



Octavarium said:


> Well yes, they’re different subtypes, but if they’re so different from each other, why should we group them together?


Because the definition of subtype is the combination of your core type and dominant instinct and they share the same core type.



Octavarium said:


> What makes them all part of the broader category of type 6? What do those three subtype characters have in common that the others don’t? It can’t be fear, because 5 and 7 are also fear types and self-pres 1s are especially anxious. So what’s distinctive about type 6?


Again, they share the same core type. 

I'm having a deja vu moment. Beyond the technical definition of subtype, few pages back I answered this question already with my own interpretation, along with other 6s. If you can't accept it, there's nothing I can do for you.



Octavarium said:


> You can justify typing anyone as a 6 because so many opposing traits are attributed to the type. Are you full of doubt and uncertainty? You’re a typical 6. Are you more certain than uncertain? You’re a social 6. Are you ambivalent towards authority? You’re a 6. Are you rebellious? Your a CP 6. Are you totally obedient to authority? Guess what type you are, and if you don’t think you follow an authority, all we need to do is stretch the meaning of the word ‘authority’ beyond all recognition, to encompass things like reason and rationality, so now anyone can be said to follow an ‘authority’ of some sort. *If the type 6 category is as broad as that, if it can be stretched to fit anyone, it becomes completely meaningless.* What would it even mean to _not_ be a 6? It’s not just forum members spreading this broad to the point of meaninglessness conception of type 6; it’s in books by major authors, included Naranjo, as @Aiwass demonstrated.


This is a rant. If you're not into Naranjo's subtypes, that's ok. You can discount him. 

To reiterate my original point to Aiwaas, Ichazo's ego types aren't broad given he defined it with specific parameters (fixations, traps, passions, virtues).


----------



## Super Luigi

tanstaafl28 said:


> I'm telling you, when you REALLY meet a solid six. You'll know it. Not all sixes show their anxiety, but they probably have some.


There's no use showing fear when the world is cruel and dangerous, and you have to be safe in order to survive. I don't show fear. I have it, but not always. I'm more afraid of failure than danger. I stand up for what I believe, and to succeed, even in the face of danger. I want support and guidance, but I don't give in to the unfair demands of corruption just to have it. It's based on trust. I only want support and guidance from people, or systems, that I trust. Unfortunately, there's not many people or systems that I trust. I gave them a lot of chances, and they were traitors.


----------



## Octavarium

Asd456 said:


> Because the definition of subtype is the combination of your core type and dominant instinct and they share the same core type.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they share the same core type.


How is that not a circular definition. They’re the same core type because they’re the same core type.



> I'm having a deja vu moment. Beyond the technical definition of subtype, few pages back I answered this question already with my own interpretation, along with other 6s. If you can't accept it, there's nothing I can do for you.


Are you talking about this post? At least your definition doesn’t suffer from the same breadth problems as some authors, but the problem is that you can look at the literature and conclude that skepticism is a core part of the type, while someone else could look at the same literature and conclude that 6s are unquestioningly obedient to authority. The type is described both ways. So it’s not that I don’t accept your definition necessarily (I don’t have much of an opinion on who has the best definition of the type) but in any case, I wasn’t intending to critique _your_ definition; I was responding to your response to the point @Aiwass made about Naranjo, and Aiwass’s point applies to other authors, even if it doesn’t apply to you.



> This is a rant. If you're not into Naranjo's subtypes, that's ok. You can discount him.


My point wasn’t about subtypes. It was about how many different types of people can be put into the type 6 category, and that point stands whether we’re using subtypes or not. I was talking about what’s common to all 6s, regardless of subtype.



> To reiterate my original point to Aiwaas, Ichazo's ego types aren't broad given he defined it with specific parameters (fixations, traps, passions, virtues).


I’ll confess I haven’t read Ichazo, so maybe he says something that explains all of this, but the passions, fixations, etc. As portrayed by other sources, don’t really help here. As I said in my previous post, we can’t say that what’s distinctive about type 6 is the passion of fear, because other types have fear as a central motivation.


----------



## Wisteria

What if 6 is just someone who has anxiety? Do you think those with anxiety are more likely to identify as a 6?


----------



## Aiwass

@Asd456 What you're essentially telling me is, Ichazo is right, all other sources are wrong. Honestly, you might be correct, but it is easier for me to dismiss the whole system as BS instead of judging nearly all of the system's official sources as "wrong" and "misleading".

My whole point is, categories are supposed to be useful. At the moment a system puts someone like Marilyn Monroe and Malcolm X in the same box, it stops being useful to me. It is reducing very different behaviors/people to a single motivational pattern, a very very vague motivation. How is this helpful to anyone?


----------



## Handsome Dyke

Aiwass said:


> At the moment a system puts someone like Marilyn Monroe and Malcolm X in the same box, it stops being useful to me. It is reducing very different behaviors/people to a single motivational pattern, a very very vague motivation. How is this helpful to anyone?


Maybe it's the celebrity typing that is useless (and therefore ends up providing misleading ideas about typology). To legitimately type someone else, one really has to know that person. Not only are celebrities unknown to most people, they also tend to put on personas in public (further obscuring their real personalities). They even get other people to ghostwrite their books.


----------



## Lady of Clockwork

I find it nonsensical when people adapt themselves to fit into a type, or waste chunks of their time trying to find their true type.

None of the enneatypes, really, have positive outlooks -- they're not supposed to, and that's the point of them. 9s are pushovers; 8s are bulldozing psychopaths; 7s are avoidant; 6s are fretting sceptics; 5s are emotionally retarded; 4s are special snowflakes; 3s are narcissistic; 2s are submissive slaves; 1s are OCD control freaks.

From what I've gathered, having read over numerous literature throughout these theories over the past few months, is that nobody is any type. Nobody is a type 6, or a 4, or a 3; nobody is an INTJ or ESFP; and nobody spends their whole life with a dominant cognitive function, such as Introverted Intuition or Extraverted Feeling. From the enneagram teachers who have given interviews - from the ones I've managed to it through - they have made it clear that the type is not your true self. (I think the theories that put too much focus on it being "who you are" merely to make people feel secure and validated is simply a marketing tactic to draw in an audience -- think about the people who feel proud that they have the same personality type as Albert Einstein or Jesus or 'L' from Deathnote.)

In theory, you should be able to relate to a bit of every type. If presently you are a clear 1, there should still be parts in an 8 or a 6 that could be seen in yourself - even if you took the 140 question RHETI test, you won't score a 0 in a type. It's used to help you find balance in yourself, and to get a better understanding of your psyche. Jung made it clear that to use typology as a means to categorise people was simply pointless. You don't have to agree with the theory, or abide to it -- it is well within your rights to classify it as a cult, a religion, or some hodgepodge nonsense that everyone who reads it is brainwashed -- but you are never going to be satisfied or happy finding your one type, because you are constantly changing and developing as an individual (hopefully), and you're likely to change types throughout your life.

Like the other typologies, whether MBTI or Jungian, I think there needs to be a blatant, universal acknowledgement for what the specific typology is getting at -- what is its focus. With enneagram, some believe you are one type alone; some believe you have a core type with a wing; some believe you have two wings either side the core; some believe you follow the Power of 7 lines, starting from your core and transition throughout the circle; some believe in integration and disintegration. Whatever the case, from what it seems, there will always be some method of looking at the enneagram circle and finding a way to make it work for you. When I left a book open on the table that bore a full page of the enneagram -- is was a sacred geometry shape, not the standard circle -- my sister thought it was witchcraft.


----------



## Paradigm

Brains said:


> Impulsivity and emotional aggression are pretty different things.


It's... still overall pretty absurd, considering everything surrounding 8's anger, and 6's ability to be strong advocates. In the full description, there's absolutely _no _mention of any 6 strengths, yet 8's are definitely praised while a few of their pitfalls are on equal display. 



> This raises one question in my head: It's fine for types to be defined as just about anything - outgoing, withdrawn, talkative, terse, socially awkward, amazingly warm and likable, haphazard and immaculate, fearful, brave, think first, do first, anything you could imagine. The moment it gets to artistic ability or some manner of inventiveness (and we all know a crapload of people who aren't the artistically inclined type), people lose their minds.
> At what point is it "I identify as Type X, therefore descriptions that don't fit are wrong" rather than "I think I'm like / am described by others as being like X, Y, Z, D, F, G, L, Ö. This type description isn't a terribly good fit, maybe I am something else / somewhat unusual example of the type and it's not the description that is wrong?"


My question is why do descriptions nowadays feel the need to delve into the behavioral, when the original descriptions (apparently) stuck to fear and motives? That may not answer your questions, but it's along the same lines as them. There's no reason to assume that a fear of lack of trust/faith is going to mean someone is traditionalist or likeable, yet here we are with that idea firmly embedded. And why? Does trying to assign behavioral traits and cognitive strengths/weaknesses bring any depth to the system? Or does it make the people who type at the non-attachments happier about being separate? Maybe it's just a simple matter of dumbing things down so people link X to Y and go on with their day within ten minutes of "reading."


----------



## Masterpiece

Brains said:


> They're double bad - the tone is unnecessarily dismissive as you noted, but they are also more or less correct on their descriptions and the uncomfortable tone gets people to dismiss the descriptions. The 5 v. 9 one for example is actually very, very good but I threw it to the trash on first read since the tone was what it was. Reading it later explicitly trying to disregard the tone proved very fruitful.


Why do you think the 9 vs 5 description is good?



Brains said:


> In this case it's very, very important to be clear about what the deep thoughts are - I know no end of people who spout empty, fanciful nonsense and think it's deep. In truth, it's just nonsense and lacks the actual insight of an insightful simplifier.


I get that, but the point is - Why apply something like that to nines specifically? Actually, why include something like that in comparison descriptions at all? What good would that do, really? Nobody wants to think of themselves as phoney thinkers; including such a veiled insult in descriptions is just going to drive people away from the type, not to mention contribute to the already shitty reputation attachment types have in the community (not necessarily just PerC but enneagram community as a whole).



> There _is_ a correlation between a temperamental style of cognitive exploration and intelligence. That's a fact of life. It's also nowhere near an iron law, just a tendency, moving the center of the distribution a bit to one side or another.


Even if this is the case, it again begs the question: _How_ are adjectives such as "intelligent" supposed to help people understand/identify their own types? As you (somewhat) implied up there, people don't tend to have a good judgment of their own intelligence/creativity, because when it comes down to it, such values can only be judged in relation to other people (are you more intelligent than the majority or less? Etc.) So, since such qualities aren't reliable means to helping people discriminate themselves from others, what purpose do adjectives like that serve in type descriptions other than to boost one's ego? Wouldn't it be more helpful if they got down to the gist (core fears, drives etc.) of both types instead when comparing them?

Edited to vent: Also, love how they included the line "nines _think_ they have deep thoughts" when nines are allegedly supposed to be the modest, down-to-earth ones. Contradictory much? Lol.


----------



## Super Luigi

Masterpiece said:


> Contradictory much? Lol.


If you look for it, you can find contradictions with anything.


----------



## Akuma no kitsune

Sixes are absolutely a separate and unique type, so if someone doesn't match up, they're not a six. And, in no way is this type even close to universal. I score lower for 6 than for any other type, and do not really relate to any aspect of this type. As someone previously stated, you'll know one, when you see one.


----------



## bearlybreathing

*Why all enneagram is nonsense


----------



## Brains

Paradigm said:


> It's... still overall pretty absurd, considering everything surrounding 8's anger, and 6's ability to be strong advocates. In the full description, there's absolutely _no _mention of any 6 strengths, yet 8's are definitely praised while a few of their pitfalls are on equal display.


Within the context of that mistyping, it's reasonable, to a point. They could do a better job, for sure, like highlighting the difference between the two types' toughness, where with Eights much anything just doesn't get to them in the first place, while the head types actively construct defenses for themselves, which is why they can crumble easier in the first place - they are vulnerable by nature, and maintain themselves tougher by some mental regimen while actively becoming vulnerable or receptive is one place where Eights might need some work on since their receptivity is so low naturally.

"There is little softness in Eights and even less tendency to comply with the wishes of anyone else. They have no desire to be liked or to ingratiate themselves with others."

Bull in a china shop and all that. Sixes have normal levels of consideration for others.




Paradigm said:


> My question is why do descriptions nowadays feel the need to delve into the behavioral, when the original descriptions (apparently) stuck to fear and motives? That may not answer your questions, but it's along the same lines as them. There's no reason to assume that a fear of lack of trust/faith is going to mean someone is traditionalist or likeable, yet here we are with that idea firmly embedded. And why? Does trying to assign behavioral traits and cognitive strengths/weaknesses bring any depth to the system? Or does it make the people who type at the non-attachments happier about being separate? Maybe it's just a simple matter of dumbing things down so people link X to Y and go on with their day within ten minutes of "reading."


The behavioral is part of personality and character. At least C&N had ample descriptions of behavior, I don't know what was on the notes the Naranjo-influenced community circulated.



Masterpiece said:


> Why do you think the 9 vs 5 description is good?


It's good because it thoroughly highlights differences in the style and tone of the types' thinking, but also highlights the strain of similarity that's present all over the place. 




> I get that, but the point is - Why apply something like that to nines specifically? Actually, why include something like that in comparison descriptions at all? What good would that do, really? Nobody wants to think of themselves as phoney thinkers; including such a veiled insult in descriptions is just going to drive people away from the type, not to mention contribute to the already shitty reputation attachment types have in the community (not necessarily just PerC but enneagram community as a whole).


The tone is a problem, yes.




> Even if this is the case, it again begs the question: _How_ are adjectives such as "intelligent" supposed to help people understand/identify their own types?
> 
> Also, love how they included the line "nines _think_ they have deep thoughts" when nines are allegedly supposed to be the modest, down-to-earth ones. Contradictory much? Lol.


It doesn't. It's a fun little tidbit, but intelligence is of little actual use in resolving some random thoughtful introvert's type.

The second part could actually be helpful typing information, but it'd need to be presented differently, more in a "think about that, is that _really_ so?" way, maybe.


----------



## Paradigm

Brains said:


> Within the context of that mistyping, it's reasonable, to a point.


How is it reasonable? What about the context of trying to find your type makes it okay to endorse one type but criticize another?

It's disingenuous to treat types so unequally and expect people to not react to it - consciously or subconsciously. 



> The behavioral is part of personality and character. At least C&N had ample descriptions of behavior, I don't know what was on the notes the Naranjo-influenced community circulated.


Heh, I was going to say how I never liked Naranjo because he conflates Enneagram with the pathological, but it felt more rambly than useful in my last post. Don't understand (that's rhetoric) how that guy has such a cult-like following; it feels almost masochistic in a way. And that's as someone who doesn't mind the pessimistic nature of the Enneagram, I kind of prefer it over the rainbows-and-sunshine of MBTI.

You're brushing off a lot of concerns, here, and you're not the only one. I pretty much said this already, but to answer your previous question more bluntly: Yes, the descriptions are the problem. They have always been the problem; I can remember arguing this same point five years ago, along with many other 6s. Furthermore, type 6 is not the only one with such crappy descriptions, but we're probably the one most frequently (indirectly) insulted in them. 

I don't agree that "character" follows behavioral traits; I'm not sure what you're basing that off of, but if it's the Big 5 correlations you bring up a lot then I just can't accept that as proof since the reliability is questionable. (It's tempting to take it as proof, but I just can't. Call that 6 skepticism if you want, but [without seeing the entire paper] it doesn't seem entirely sound.) Sure, many 6s follow the ol' traditionalist pattern... or maybe the traditionalist "6s" aren't 6s because they're not afraid of a lack of Faith; maybe the quiet progressive over there is 6 because they do. The only thing that should matter is the core fear; it's sad that's got lost.


----------



## DeadOutside

sixes aren't necessarily super anxious, what makes sixes sixes is the lack of inner guidance. If a "six" does not lack inner guidance and their most important motivation in life is not to find security in one or multiple groups, they are not a six.


----------



## Paradigm

DeadOutside said:


> sixes aren't necessarily super anxious, what makes sixes sixes is the lack of inner guidance. If a "six" does not lack inner guidance and their most important motivation in life is not to find security in one or multiple groups, they are not a six.


*sigh*
No


----------



## DeadOutside

According to multiple descriptions that is @Paradigm


----------



## Paradigm

DeadOutside said:


> According to multiple descriptions that is @Paradigm


You haven't been following the thread at all, have you?

All well and good if you want to cling to your descriptions as guidance. I'd rather trust what _I _know.


----------



## DeadOutside

I don't "cling" to them for guidance cause this has got nothing to do with me at all and I dont see the point of this thread with people making arguments based on their own experiences, of course the definitions are gonna differ, what do you expect? 
"
All well and good if you want to cling to your descriptions as guidance. I'd rather trust what I know." 

A bit of pointless passive aggressiveness right there?


----------



## DeadOutside

If six is defined that way by its creators that IS what six is, anything else is just your experience and your personal definition


----------



## Paradigm

edit: nvm, I don't feel like arguing this particular one when I've addressed most of it already.


----------



## knife

DeadOutside said:


> If six is defined that way by its creators that IS what six is, anything else is just your experience and your personal definition


This type of essentialism is -- perhaps counter-intuitively -- actively harmful in advancing a body of theory. It is not uncommon for a theory's creator(s) to be ignorant of things that, when discovered later, either strengthen or undermine their theory.

In other, blunter words, the absolute *worst* thing you can do is take the creator's words as gospel rather than guidance; Isaac Newton's physics were eventually outmoded; genetics adds depth to evolution Charles Darwin couldn't even have dreamed of.


----------



## Dyslexicon

This thread is interesting to me.

I just wrote in the 9 forum about how writing a type description for any type is a tall order. Written language isn't necessarily the best tool for encapsulating the various types. I may have a gut bias in my thinking, but I understand types better in terms of energy and shapes. This often doesn't translate all that well into language. This doesn't mean that one shouldn't try or that it's impossible to do in a meaningful way. I just think it's a very hard thing to do. 

Another issue I see being discussed here is when the descriptions, and maybe even the cores/shapes/energy of the types, are measured against the general values of modern society. I can perhaps argue that these values are somewhat accidental and are also likely to change over time, but they are nevertheless part of the context we find ourselves in when trying to understand something like the Enneagram. So it's hard, or maybe even impossible, to discount them when interpreting descriptions and testimonies of the types. Although I don't personally think how each type is valued in society at large or in typology communities is relevant to understanding the types themselves, it's hard to get past it and I do think it muddies the waters in terms of understanding. So I feel it's definitely helpful to keep this in check and have it be up for debate and consideration. And if a distinct type or energy is undervalued in a community, I have a hunch that this is a sign that the very type(s) is something that is needed. 

If I were to describe how I conceptualize and feel the type 6, I find myself gravitating towards to word "unrest" in this moment. This could also fit for the two other head types, though I feel the unrest in their cases feel more directional. I don't know if this relates to those who are type 6 (?).

As an aside, I see pendulous movements as central to the understanding of each type. Maybe I'm not seeing the issue about the type 6 specifically, but I think the contradictions and paradoxes is what makes the shape of a type even clearer. I don't know if this makes sense, or if I'm missing something. 

I may be moving into dangerous waters with this question, but I'm genuinly curious what thoughts 6s have about this - Do you think that there is something about the type 6 itself that is especially sensitive to the shortcomings of descriptions to be found? I'm curious, because I do find that descriptions for certain types seems to come across more condescending and limiting than others (maybe especially for the 6s, 9s and 3s (although I often react the same way to the descriptions of 1s in particular, and reverting back to the problem of language I think there's limitations to any description)). I'm just wondering if it has more to do with accidental and general values from the outside, or if it also has to do with the particular struggles within the given types. I'm not sure if I'm framing my question very well, but I would be interested in hearing a 6 perspective on this if my attempt at a question sparks any thoughts.

Understanding the Enneagram is not an easy task though. The abundance of stereotypes and misconceptions isn't surprising, and I'm sure we all have them to some degree. Plentiful research and open communication is likely to help a lot, so I guess I'm encouraging this for myself and others. I'm also now wondering if testimonies from the actual types themselves is a better source than descriptions made from a supposed objective perspective.


----------



## Masterpiece

Brains said:


> The second part could actually be helpful typing information, but it'd need to be presented differently, more in a "*think about that, is that really so?"* way, maybe.


Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

-

Anyways, the point of this thread isn't to rail against how certain types are represented (even though that's still a serious issue, but nonetheless - I'm sorry as well for contributing to the derail; that deserves its' own thread), but how the identity of certain types -type six, in particular- are so undefined that it practically might as well not be an official type at all. It's not about "it is what it is" anymore; it's about "_what_ is it in the first place"? I admit I haven't read all that much enneagram material, but even from my limited resources I can clearly tell that each type -save for six and nine- has its' own character; with their own well-defined traits, fears, motivations, etc. (stereotypical as they may be). Type nine gets somewhat of a pass because having no clear identity _is_ part of its' character (hence the merging, crown of the enneagram, etc.), but then where does that leave type six? It isn't the all-encompassing type of the enneagram like nine is, it doesn't have its' own distinctive traits (beyond "security-seeking") to set itself apart from the other types; it's basically left there to float around awkwardly in the middle of nowhere. It's so sloppily defined to the point where practically _any_ trait can be assigned to it. And that's because traits like "traditionalist", "guidance-seeking", "loyal" are all very banal, basic traits that seem more like behaviors produced by human instincts rather than genuine traits that come from a person's nature. 

I'm going to be simplifying a _lot_ here (and I apologize in advance for it), but for the sake of comparison, look at the other types. Two is afraid of being unloved/unwanted. So it sacrifices itself for others to compensate for that. Three fears being worthless. So it sets out to become high-achieving to create the sense of self-worth it never felt it had. Four fears having no personal significance. So it gets ahead of its' shame by identifying with it. Five fears being helpless. So it hoards knowledge in order to feel in power and in control. Seven fears being in pain and deprived. So it avoids its' own mind by constantly seeking out new/stimulating experiences. Etc. etc. Now look at six. Allegedly, it fears "being without support and guidance". What does it apparently do to compensate for that? It...clings onto tradition and relationships to feel safe...? Aims to dispatch any source of danger in its' environment? Or on the other extreme end, it goes full-out _tsundere_ and rebels against authority and the norm...? Do you see the difference here? Unlike the other types, the alleged defense mechanisms of type six doesn't feel like a response to a fear fixation that's unique to a person, but a universal stress-response that can be applicable to every emotionally-unhealthy person ever; regardless of type (particularly the defense mechanism of cp6; that of the p6, well...it just seems like normal survival instincts). This is why OP is claiming six doesn't feel like a real type.

Again, I have a pretty limited access to enneagram resources. And I'm a little rusty on enneagram theory as of now, so I'm basing a lot of this post on R&H's descriptions. But I think this illustrates the view point of beginners who are just getting into the enneagram (seeing as RH is most likely the first source they'll run into). Bottom line is - the traits/defense mechanisms assigned to type six, if not pathetic-sounding, is much too banal and instinct-driven to be as specific as those of other types.


----------



## Daeva

Masterpiece said:


> Allegedly, it fears "being without support and guidance". What does it apparently do to compensate for that?


Skepticism that has the potential for paranoia in its extreme.

*BOOM*

Every phobic or counter phobic manifestation is explained by this. This entire thread is an example of what type 6 is about. The "_This is nonsense_" talk while still looking for outside input (just in case they missed a beat). The overload of questioning.


Type 6 is a well defined type and is not harder to spot than other types. However, bias from authors is still a thing and needs to be accounted for, and yes, type 6 gets the brunt of it. I see it as a fearful response of the authors themselves, in reaction to the psychological uncertainty that the type evokes.


----------



## Blue Ribbon

Paradigm said:


> *sigh*
> No


Have to agree with @Paradigm here. What do you mean by lack of internal guidance? 6 is a super ego type. Super ego types are the most self aware, more so than ego types like 5s and Id types like 8. 

I would argue the opposite of what you said. That 6s have too much "inner guidance." As for seeking security in groups, no. 

I don't think 6s are inherently mistrustful either. 6s are pretty trusting. Self preserving? No, I myself would easily sacrifice my well being for someone else. 6s don't trust "groups" or whatever. Even in groups, you have to see who does what, who has power over who, etc. 

At the core, I think 6s are simply people trying to perfect a set of rules, sort of like a conscience. That's how I see 6. 6s want that perfect set of life rules. From what I understand, at the basic level, the sixes fear is existential. It's a fear of too much freedom, too much chaos. 6 seeks safety in rules and structure. The lack of which is what causes anxiety. It's not social structure or whatever. The more "rules" a 6 can enforce upon themselves, the happier they are. It's not just any rules. The rules themselves have to be perfect and meaningful to the 6. This is my personal experience with the type. I don't necessarily think I'm right but I think I'm close to the mark.


----------



## Lunacik

OP should read more in depth about E6.

It's funny though, I thought 9 was the trap door of the Enneagram for those on their way out...since it sees a little of themselves in every type and I thought everyone related to every type at first (since I did). So, opposite reasons:
Me: "I fit everywhere, 9 is a trap"
OP: "People who fit nowhere else can always fit here"

Quite a funny choice of words, too..."safety net"...lol I'm jk, but in all seriousness, I don't see how it's one at all. Plenty of people are nothing like sixes. Would be funny if OP was a 6 and sees it as the safety net of the Enneagram for that reason.


----------



## Paradigm

RGB said:


> It's funny though, I thought 9 was the trap door of the Enneagram for those on their way out...since it sees a little of themselves in every type and I thought everyone related to every type at first (since I did).
> [...]
> Quite a funny choice of words, too..."safety net"...lol I'm jk, but in all seriousness, I don't see how it's one at all. Plenty of people are nothing like sixes. Would be funny if OP was a 6 and sees it as the safety net of the Enneagram for that reason.


Typically people get caught up in type 4/5 (_a full quarter_ of the people here type at 5, a fifth at type 4, and most type as either/or/both fixed, so I'd say over 50% "get stuck" at those), whereas it's perceived as other people invariably type _others_ at 6/9. (~11% of people here self-type at 6, and ~10% at 9, so it's really not that bad.) It's like how people assume everyone else is an ESxx but they themselves are always an INxx.
Source

I realize I may be saying mildly hypocritical things, considering my self-typing, but I put a lot of effort into finding mine out and cross-referenced many times xD


----------



## Lunacik

Paradigm said:


> Typically people get caught up in type 4/5 (_a full quarter_ of the people here type at 5, a fifth at type 4, and most type as either/or/both fixed, so I'd say over 50% "get stuck" at those), whereas it's perceived as other people invariably type _others_ at 6/9. (~11% of people here self-type at 6, and ~10% at 9, so it's really not that bad.) It's like how people assume everyone else is an ESxx but they themselves are always an INxx.
> Source
> 
> I realize I may be saying mildly hypocritical things, considering my self-typing, but I put a lot of effort into finding mine out and cross-referenced many times xD


Yeah, I don't know many ESxx types on PerC. It's mostly INxx on the internet.


----------



## Paradigm

RGB said:


> Yeah, I don't know many ESxx types on PerC. It's mostly INxx on the internet.


Well, it's off topic, but:
Nah, I don't believe in that. It seems much more likely, to me, that people believe there are more INxx and thus type as such: a mistype self-fulfilling prophecy. "You are here, thus you must be X." I'd think it would be natural that extroverts or sensors would pop up here: extroverts (especially the irl-shy ones) can just as easily find outward stimuli on forums, and sensors can find use or interest in the theory (or theories). It seems fairly common that extroverts will convince themselves they're introverts, sensors will convince themselves they're intuitives, and the cycle perpetuates.

I've vaguely noticed that ISxJs seem to be posting more, but that may be wishful thinking. I'd love to hear genuine stuff from more Sensors.


----------



## Lunacik

Paradigm said:


> Well, it's off topic, but:
> Nah, I don't believe in that. It seems much more likely, to me, that people believe there are more INxx and thus type as such: a mistype self-fulfilling prophecy. "You are here, thus you must be X."


Lmao who the hell types as a type simply because they're on the internet, or types someone else as that bc they're on there? Gonna call bullshit on that one.



Paradigm said:


> I'd think it would be natural that extroverts or sensors would pop up here: extroverts (especially the irl-shy ones) can just as easily find outward stimuli on forums, and sensors can find use or interest in the theory (or theories). It seems fairly common that extroverts will convince themselves they're introverts, sensors will convince themselves they're intuitives, and the cycle perpetuates.
> 
> I've vaguely noticed that ISxJs seem to be posting more, but that may be wishful thinking. I'd love to hear genuine stuff from more Sensors.


Nomothetic theory is theory--by definition of iNtuitive / Sensing, it's not unreasonable to expect fewer Sensors to be into it than iNtuitives. They are literally partly identified by the fact that they prefer concrete over theory.


----------



## Paradigm

RGB said:


> Lmao who the hell types as a type simply because they're on the internet, or types someone else as that bc they're on there? Gonna call bullshit on that one.


It's a mix of peer pressure and confirmation bias, among other things. People's actions and words don't always line up with their self-image, and they use simplistic reasoning in many things. Just because you might not relate, or might not have noticed it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.



> Nomothetic theory is theory--by definition of iNtuitive / Sensing, it's not unreasonable to expect fewer Sensors to be into it than iNtuitives. They are literally partly identified by the fact that they prefer concrete over theory.


I didn't say Sensors (or Es) would outnumber intuitives (or Is) here. I said there should be more of them than are self-identified now, which is under 15%. Yes, there probably are more Is and/or Ns here (in comparison to whatever the "normal" ratio is, I guess), but that doesn't mean they'd be the _only ones_ here (literally, over 85% self-type as Ns; almost 22% say ENxx and 66% INxx). As I said, there _are_ concrete uses to the theory, which, even if you're using such a base definition of Sensing, means it _is_ actually possible for them to stick around for a while. Dare I say, it's _probable_ for there to be more than 15%, given the amount of people in the world and the different types of instances and personality that may find it all interesting.


----------



## Lunacik

Paradigm said:


> It's a mix of peer pressure and confirmation bias, among other things. People's actions and words don't always line up with their self-image, and they use simplistic reasoning in many things. Just because you might not relate, or might not have noticed it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.


Me: _It's mostly INxx on the internet._ (and I meant PerC, btw.)
You: _people believe there are more INxx and thus type as such: a mistype self-fulfilling prophecy. *"You are here, thus you must be X."*_
You clearly were not talking about confirmation bias or anything else here. It's inaccurate, plain and simple.



Paradigm said:


> I didn't say Sensors (or Es) would outnumber intuitives (or Is) here. I said there should be more of them than are self-identified now, which is under 15%. Yes, there probably are more Is and/or Ns here (in comparison to whatever the "normal" ratio is, I guess), but that doesn't mean they'd be the _only ones_ here (literally, over 85% self-type as Ns; almost 22% say ENxx and 66% INxx). As I said, there _are_ concrete uses to the theory, which, even if you're using such a base definition of Sensing, means it _is_ actually possible for them to stick around for a while. Dare I say, it's _probable_ for there to be more than 15%, given the amount of people in the world and the different types of instances and personality that may find it all interesting.


If you're not saying they'd outnumber iNtuitives here, then why did you include this as a part of your argument against, "_It's mostly INxx on the internet._" ????
"There are some mistyped Sensors here" is entirely different than, "I don't believe most are INxx because..."
I mean, you basically just said that what you stated in post #244 was completely irrelevant.


----------



## Nicholasjh1

RGB said:


> Yeah, I don't know many ESxx types on PerC. It's mostly INxx on the internet.


THat's certainly a good point. S's especially ES's mayb simply not obsessively use the internet... makes sense. It's called sample bias. The same could be true as to why there are many 5's in the 5 group. etc. Some people are certainly more likely to use the internet and it makes sense that amount of internet use would highly correlate to personality type. In fact it's even a joke on the 8 forum about how sparsely populated it is.

Edit: another example is that I used to work on structuring contracts and billing at an insurance company. For a long time I started feeling like our business was insane and breaking apart... then I did the actual metrics and realized there was a less then 1% failure rate and I simply was only exposed to the failure rate because I was a go to guy for fixing things... a sample bias... the sample was biased towards failure because of the nature of the job and my performance, but without realizing the sample subset it could look like the sky was falling....

In the same sense if introverted intuitives love to exhaustively argue on the internet... then it's much more likely to have a large sample of introverted intuitives... It's simple math.


----------



## Nicholasjh1

Also 6 exists... either OP isn't a 6 or doesn't understand themselves (a strong possibility) I had an intimate relationship with a self typed 6 for 10 years and guarantee they fit almost every criteria and stereotype to at least a certain extent and the core fear is very there. The core fear is the most notable and the complex around trust. If you keep typing as a six and you aren't either the test is bad or you simply don't know yourself very well. I know my 6 x was certainly in massive denial about her fears for a long time... and that's half the point of personality typing... for people to see their blind spots. So consider you may have massive blind spots if you think 6 doesn't exist but you consistently test as a 6.


----------



## tanstaafl28

Nicholasjh1 said:


> Also 6 exists... either OP isn't a 6 or doesn't understand themselves (a strong possibility) I had an intimate relationship with a self typed 6 for 10 years and guarantee they fit almost every criteria and stereotype to at least a certain extent and the core fear is very there. The core fear is the most notable and the complex around trust. If you keep typing as a six and you aren't either the test is bad or you simply don't know yourself very well. I know my 6 x was certainly in massive denial about her fears for a long time... and that's half the point of personality typing... for people to see their blind spots. So consider you may have massive blind spots if you think 6 doesn't exist but you consistently test as a 6.


LOL. I work with a very intense 6w5 Sx/So 614. He can talk himself into (and out of) anything. He constantly spins scenarios, some of them "worst-case," some of them just "what if's," but he's taken the time to think these things out to what he considers their logical conclusion (often out loud). He is absolutely brilliant, meticulous, and just a little bit jaded, but so much of that brilliance gets lost in being anxious about failing to perform his tasks properly, that he winds up spooking himself. He will offer to help anyone, and he wants to be seen as a good member of the team. If he's going to get food, you can give him money and he'll pick up your order for you. I try not to spin him up, but it's very tempting. I like to get him started on an "off-angle" idea and see where he'll take it. He's a really good guy though, I'd definitely get his back.


----------



## Full_fathom_4

Might as well. 

this board is very NF and completely non-achieving. just a bunch of 'my take' on this or that. And poor really. 

6 is already very understood, so long as it isn't re-defined for ego reasons. Let's see, there's artsy NF 6's, stuck ass SJ 6's, dumb-ass 6's, punk-ass 6's.

What do they all share? 

Being 6! 

(and right angles)

90 degrees. 

yes/no

a friend, no you're a foe

I don't like you

I like you... just so, but you aren't now

the same person, I met long ago.

The mind does weird tricks, 

when I pretend you* don't exist

*you, you...... car payment, mother-in-law, tree on the left side of the house.

we can agree this is neurotic, right? Like, I'm neurotic?


----------



## tanstaafl28

Full_fathom_4 said:


> Might as well.
> 
> this board is very NF and completely non-achieving. just a bunch of 'my take' on this or that. And poor really.
> 
> 6 is already very understood, so long as it isn't re-defined for ego reasons. Let's see, there's artsy NF 6's, stuck ass SJ 6's, dumb-ass 6's, punk-ass 6's.
> 
> What do they all share?
> 
> Being 6!
> 
> (and right angles)
> 
> 90 degrees.
> 
> yes/no
> 
> a friend, no you're a foe
> 
> I don't like you
> 
> I like you... just so, but you aren't now
> 
> the same person, I met long ago.
> 
> The mind does weird tricks,
> 
> when I pretend you* don't exist
> 
> *you, you...... car payment, mother-in-law, tree on the left side of the house.
> 
> we can agree this is neurotic, right? Like, I'm neurotic?


Well excuse my NT ass. Look at my above post and slow your neurotic roll. 😜


----------



## Nicholasjh1

tanstaafl28 said:


> LOL. I work with a very intense 6w5 Sx/So 614. He can talk himself into (and out of) anything. He constantly spins scenarios, some of them "worst-case," some of them just "what if's," but he's taken the time to think these things out to what he considers their logical conclusion (often out loud). He is absolutely brilliant, meticulous, and just a little bit jaded, but so much of that brilliance gets lost in being anxious about failing to perform his tasks properly, that he winds up spooking himself. He will offer to help anyone, and he wants to be seen as a good member of the team. If he's going to get food, you can give him money and he'll pick up your order for you. I try not to spin him up, but it's very tempting. I like to get him started on an "off-angle" idea and see where he'll take it. He's a really good guy though, I'd definitely get his back.


Yep, that sounds so like my x that it's painful. It's almost like we're talking about the same person.


----------



## Nicholasjh1

Full_fathom_4 said:


> Might as well.
> 
> this board is very NF and completely non-achieving. just a bunch of 'my take' on this or that. And poor really.
> 
> 6 is already very understood, so long as it isn't re-defined for ego reasons. Let's see, there's artsy NF 6's, stuck ass SJ 6's, dumb-ass 6's, punk-ass 6's.
> 
> What do they all share?
> 
> Being 6!
> 
> (and right angles)
> 
> 90 degrees.
> 
> yes/no
> 
> a friend, no you're a foe
> 
> I don't like you
> 
> I like you... just so, but you aren't now
> 
> the same person, I met long ago.
> 
> The mind does weird tricks,
> 
> when I pretend you* don't exist
> 
> *you, you...... car payment, mother-in-law, tree on the left side of the house.
> 
> we can agree this is neurotic, right? Like, I'm neurotic?


Non-achieving NF's? My take? You're full of S*t. consider people share their take because this is a constructed language. The difference between Nf's and you is that they realize it's constructed so actually try to cue the construction and share context, because they realize in order to provide to the people on the other side those people are seeking to understand. People seeking to understand gravitate towards this board. Is the issue that you think you're so wise that people should just listen to what you say and understand? Consider they may have a blind spot and throwing words at them with half formed concepts isn't going to cut it. I do agree the title of this thread is pretty f'ing funny though. what an arrogant and senseless statement that 6 in enneagram is nonsense. It's such a 6 thing to say too that you know they're probably a 6.


----------



## Nicholasjh1

star tripper said:


> My mom said I was exactly like the protagonist from The Bridge, and then a few weeks later, they revealed she was an Aspie.
> 
> For those it might help, though, it was just stupid to label me anything other than a head type, and I had to stop and ask myself what I perceived as my biggest obstacle in myself, what were my compulsions, what was wrong with me. And though I am rather unorthodox for a 5 (I idolize rock n roll for example), the framework in which my compulsions operated reflected 5's (not to mention 8 was very obviously where I integrate as I fair worship Socionics Se). As my best friend posited, "You're like Jeff Winger's and Abed Nadir's lovechild who grew up in the wild west."


Hey! I'm another 5 Sx/So. though I'm 5w4 I'm pretty different from the typical 5 as well.


----------



## Nicholasjh1

Mesh Malachi Modeste said:


> Ok. Not directed at Aiwass but quoted to make my point clear. This is something I've been thinking about for a while: people being dissatisfied with type descriptions because *they've projected their own values onto the typology*. (I think this is behind some of the "Sensor descriptions are crap" sentiment as well because I've never seen a description of Sensors that I found to be unflattering or "worse" than descriptions of Intuitives.)
> 
> For example, valuing creativity over reproduction and/or traditionalism:
> Creating plays is useless if no one will perform them. The playwright/theater troupe relationship, the composer/symphony relationship, etc. is not one of better/worse. The work of art doesn't exist as intended without both roles.
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with being a "traditionalist." In art, it doesn't really matter. What's the problem if that's how some artists choose to express themselves, especially if fans like it?
> 
> In life in general, society couldn't endure if things were changing all the time. Some things need to be preserved. "Innovation" and "creativity" and the like might _seem_ cool but the reality is that without a bit of the old ways to provide some context and stability, life would be exhausting and bewildering. People would end up needlessly re-inventing the wheel. It could actually inhibit creativity. And this description certainly doesn't paint traditionalism as worse than originality. That idea seems like a *projection* to me.
> 
> The _source_ of this creator/performer dichotomy is also instructive: type 4s creativity can come from wallowing in painful emotions and desperately trying to be special. Type 6s attraction to tradition can come from insecurity. *Both* are coming from personal problems, both can be coping mechanisms.
> 
> Similarly, type 5's "bold" and "iconoclastic" thinking can come from being out of touch with other people or life in general. Does that sound much better than a frantic type 6? It isn't _inherently_ better. Bold new ideas can also be terrible ideas and useless (impractical) ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> Another thing is that these particular descriptions are based on ways people misidentify their type, so the traits that are covered aren't necessarily going to present a balanced view of the types. If a lot of sixes mistype because of seemingly positive traits of other types, then an (accurate) list of misidentifications is going to cover those traits and probably _not_ cover the positive traits of a type 6.


Yeah, though they could show the more negative side of 5's non-linear thinking... I mean really, I couldn't articulate much to anyone early in my life. being articulate as a 5 was extremely difficult, and for the first time in my life I was called articulate by someone this year... at the age of 41... and that took an incredible effort - I've done 10 years of radical emotional work to be that way. I'm not saying all 5's are that non-linear and difficult to understand, but being a 5 is definitely not "better" then being a 6. they could improve those descriptions however by showing the bad sides more clearly of the cross examples they used, the descriptions are probably needlessly triggering. (Edit: though I know there's the idea that if you're triggered it's probably describing you, so maybe that was purposeful. (what a 5 thing to say)).


----------



## Nicholasjh1

Two-Face said:


> Based on my own experience and observation, I'm inclined to believe that 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 are the most self-aware. That means 2, 6, 8, and 9 are the least self-aware. Although 5 works a lot better with ISTJs, ISTPs, INTPs, and INFPs, than INFJs. Actually, I take back 1. 1w9s are better at self-awareness than 1w2s, but neither are very good at it.
> 
> 
> Exactly.


Nice to know that I'm the worst kind of 5!  Actually I'm pretty interested in this statement. I definitely had to go a very difficult route to become fully self expressed and aware of myself. with Fi being in shadow, getting it out of shadow was a herculean task. What do you base the statement on? Thanks!


----------



## Nicholasjh1

Paradigm said:


> Typically people get caught up in type 4/5 (_a full quarter_ of the people here type at 5, a fifth at type 4, and most type as either/or/both fixed, so I'd say over 50% "get stuck" at those), whereas it's perceived as other people invariably type _others_ at 6/9. (~11% of people here self-type at 6, and ~10% at 9, so it's really not that bad.) It's like how people assume everyone else is an ESxx but they themselves are always an INxx.
> Source
> 
> I realize I may be saying mildly hypocritical things, considering my self-typing, but I put a lot of effort into finding mine out and cross-referenced many times xD


I really think that's a projection because of sample bias... It makes sense that a lot of 5's would be on the internet a lot, and seeking out new knowledge at a site dedicated to knowledge. I don't see a conflict that a lot of people on the site type as 5's.


----------



## Nicholasjh1

drmiller100 said:


> An 8 has ultimate trust in themselves. When they don't, they implode and disintegrate into a 5. An 8 is worried about being vulnerable, so we are looking for someone to trust implicitly to be vulnerable with. But ultimately, we trust ourselves.
> 
> A 6 looks to trust others, and them giving their trust is a rare and valuable gift.
> 
> You as a 5 made that comment because as a 5 you are looking for understanding of the world, and therebye control of the world (integration to 8). You believe if you can bring knowledge into yourself, then you can make the world safe by understanding.
> So, understanding starts with you having faith in yourself and your knowledge of the situation, and from there you can expand out into the world


I get what you're saying now, but I don't think there is a fixation with trusting things vs not trusting things with a 5. a 5 doesn't trust anything until they can "fully understand it and fit it in their knowledge" and often doesn't want to take action until at "correct knowledge". After several months of contemplation and a lot of self work I'm getting further in understanding this. Much more integrated into action. Thanks for your support. I still think there's a fundamental issue with trust for a 6, but you could be correct that that is a projection based on my own issues with self trust (Edit: vs. trust in the knowledge). I'll keep that in mind in my processing. Thanks!


----------



## Full_fathom_4

Nicholasjh1 said:


> Non-achieving NF's? My take? You're full of S*t.


I've caused great irreparable damage, I've sullied my own good name, I've soiled my eating location so greatly...... the most polite act of kindness I could possibly perform..... is to never post here again!

Edit: This thread has almost 100 views more than when I posted this 6 hours ago. And there's like 3 or 4 posts on the rest of the E forum. 

But there's not 100 people posting here.

Lame. 

You people are LAME!


----------

