# What's your enneagram type?



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

rajAs said:


> I'm not a 4! *feels unique*


:kitteh:


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

is there really that few type 3s around?


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> is there really that few type 3s around?


I think 3s are really hard to identify because they are so adaptive. They can easily be mistaken for any other type, imo.


----------



## Slagasauras (Jun 26, 2013)

Kintsugi said:


> I think 3s are really hard to identify because they are so adaptive. They can easily be mistaken for any other type, imo.


I was scratching my head when I read the type three description as I could not label any.
My mother tested as one, yet she seems far more one like.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Slagasauras said:


> I was scratching my head when I read the type three description as I could not label any.
> My mother tested as one, yet she seems far more one like.


The thing with type descriptions in typology is that they were written by someone with their own _personal bias_, filtered through their own understanding of the world, and influenced by their life experiences (such as upbringing, culture, etc). That's not to say that these objective markers or stereotypes are completely useless, it's just important to remember that they are merely the result of somebody else's _subjective perception.

_As you can tell I am somebody that thinks it is more important to try and understand the core motivations of each type, so that you can build your own understanding of the core essence of what each type is about and how it may manifest in people of different cognitive type, culture, gender, etc. 

Honestly, I'm not sure I fully grasp what "Enneagram" is all about. I understand it at a basic level and I think it's an interesting introspective tool, but I am yet to be convinced that it is a reliable enough system to use on others. It seems very subjective to me, so I am wary of trying to make it "objective", if that makes sense. xD


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> That's not to say that these objective markers or stereotypes are completely useless, it's just important to remember that they are merely the result of somebody else's _subjective perception._


Pretty much this. Jung even said as much in The Undiscovered Self:



> “The statistical method shows the facts in the light of the ideal average but does not give us a picture of their empirical reality. While reflecting an indisputable aspect of reality, it can falsify the actual truth in a most misleading way. This is particularly true of theories which are based on statistics. The distinctive thing about real facts, however, is their individuality. *Not to put too fine a point on it, once could say that the real picture consists of nothing but exceptions to the rule, and that, in consequence, absolute reality has predominantly the character of irregularity.*”
> 
> “Naturally, society has an indisputable right to protect itself against arrant subjectivisms, but, in so far as society is itself composed of de-individualized human beings, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless individualists. Let it band together into groups and organizations as much as it likes – it is just this banding together and the resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros joined together do not, unfortunately, add up to one. *Ultimately everything depends on the quality of the individual, but our fatally short-sighted age thinks only in terms of large numbers and mass organizations,* though one would think that the world had seen more than enough of what a well-disciplined mob can do in the hand of a single madman.”


And elaborated as such in Psychological Types on the observer effect and the tendency of the observer to impose their biases (projection) onto the object of interest. This was, of course, the point of Psychological Types... the schism between subjective imposition and objective identification, I think... either imposing one's own subjective viewpoint or getting "caught up in objects."

I tend to think both Enneagram and Jung/Beebe/Socionics work best on the "inner" perspective (purely, from the subjective standpoint), which may be why I'm not terribly fond of Socionics; it seems to spell things out too readily in an attempt to make them objective for my tastes... I realize those patterns may emerge over time, but I think there's a tendency to say "you MUST find your dual!" to the point of fatalism.

I tend to do better taking things on an individual level... even with things like music or art, I don't think in terms of genre so much as the work immediately in front of me.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

@hal0hal0

Interesting. ^_^

I find Enneagram harder to stomach because of the subjectivity of it. I am much more comfortable with the "objectivity" of Socionics (which is questionable, as you pointed out, and I do agree with you on some level), and that the theory often matches my own personal experiences, whereas there is no "consistency" with Enneagram. I cannot see the so-called type "patterns" in real-life. Trying to categorize the deep and internal motivations and fears of people seems to be too difficult, as it is way too complex. Creating a system to understand cognition seems to be much easier, because, really, it's just the surface-level stuff. Those 4-letters don't tell us jack-shit about people as _individuals_, in the grand scheme of things.

I do get frustrated when people try and "box" me according to their subjective perception and understanding of a typology system (such as Enneagram), and then claim that it is valid and more important than my perception because it is based upon "objective criteria" (i.e. some bullet point list of "type traits" that some so-called "expert" has come up with). I guess this might have something to do with my Fi being stronger than Te; I am much more comfortable with Fi-based categorizations when it comes to defining who I am, than I am with Te-based ones. Actually, I have noticed that Enneagram seems to attract far more Fi-types than it does Fe-types, which might also be related to this.

I get what you say about the whole "dual" thing with Socionics, and I do think that people place way too much significance on it (coming from someone who is always talking about being in a "dual relationship", haha!) I have told you this before, but I don't think " cognitive type" really tells us much, apart from the patterns in how we perceive and filter "data". I do not think that being an ESFP means that I MUST be with an INTJ because otherwise I am just a dysfunctional human, nor do I think that knowing I am ESFP is the magic key that will allow myself or anyone else to predict my behavior in any given situation, or will tell me what kind of life choices I should make, etc. The most helpful thing I have taken from Socionics is an awareness of the many different ways people _process _and make sense of information. It has helped me to realize that, SHOCK HORROR, not everyone thinks in the same way I do, lol. So, in many respects, it has helped me become a little more open minded and accepting of the differences between myself and others.

I pretty much take any type-description with a pinch of salt (including Socionics). I always seek to gain an understanding of the underlying concepts that the system is trying to make sense of. I just find, for some reason, that this has been much easier for me with Jung/Socionics than it has been with Enneagram. I'm not entirely sure why.


----------



## Scruffy (Aug 17, 2009)

Yeah, 3w4-5w6-9w8 sp/sx. I'm posting from a bullshit phone so ignore the shitty way that I post. The enneagram is a much squishier typology, but I prefer it to the others. The other typologies focus on perception and simply a way of processing information. Enneagram asserts that we all are born with some sort of lack, a void if you will. That void shapes behavior because we tend to fixate on filling it with a variety of things, which showcases our behavior. It hits harder than the others because it really shows the uglier parts of a person. Being a 3: my void is a lack of inherent value/sense of self. I fill that void by trying on a number of hats, and using the outside world to judge that particular hat. A well received hat makes me feel worth while, and fills that void. The enneagram is an ugly typology, but it's fantastic for self-analysis.


----------



## angelcarnivore (Apr 15, 2015)

-views poll results- sees that 4s are most common. Laughs for months.

Y'all must find that *infuriating*.


----------



## angelcarnivore (Apr 15, 2015)

My view is that all of this is malleable- and utilize it to better understand my default, so I can change it when necessary.

The 3 advice for growth is incredibly insulting to me- as a healthy 3 grows to a 6 which grows to a 9-- I can completely skip that middle step but just stressing out and disintegrating to a 9 directly. I have waay too many 6s to deal with- I don't care to emulate worry. I'd rather hallucinate my way to muscle memory.

I also think, the journey of self-discovery will inevitably lead everyone to the discover that you are not your body, that you are not your thoughts, that "you" are simply a Consciousness with a free will to learn and sensate as you will. We are the *choosers* of our experience, nothing more and nothing less. What's so wrong with being a nobody when we aren't acting? Being nobody is great- because then ALL of it is yours, as you can constantly make new choices based on what is acceptable to you. 

If you can push past the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, you can break the habit of old thoughts and integrate new ones. If you can accept making mistakes at first, and modelling the techniques of those who have succeeded in your objective- you can have everything you want. 

Watch someone ride a bike. Get on the bike. Fail. Correct. Try again. Fail. Model the person riding the bike again, or look for better bike riders. Adjust. Try again. Succeed! 

If I don't know, I go learn. If I cannot do, I find a teacher to show me how to do. 

(Maybe this is why 3s are rare- we're not shackled to being 3s- we are freed by it.)


----------



## Surreal Snake (Nov 17, 2009)

Type. 4 the most percentage wise. Gee, who woulda thought


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

angelcarnivore said:


> I also think, the journey of self-discovery will inevitably lead everyone to the discover that you are not your body, that you are not your thoughts, that "you" are simply a Consciousness with a free will to learn and sensate as you will. We are the *choosers* of our experience, nothing more and nothing less. What's so wrong with being a nobody when we aren't acting? Being nobody is great- because then ALL of it is yours, as you can constantly make new choices based on what is acceptable to you.
> 
> If you can push past the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, you can break the habit of old thoughts and integrate new ones. If you can accept making mistakes at first, and modelling the techniques of those who have succeeded in your objective- you can have everything you want.
> 
> Watch someone ride a bike. Get on the bike. Fail. Correct. Try again. Fail. Model the person riding the bike again, or look for better bike riders. Adjust. Try again. Succeed!


Hmm, interesting. I actually think I am, in part, "my body". When my body dies I will cease to exist (I _think _). What do you mean by "consciousnesses," exactly?

I agree that thoughts should not define us, however, it seems to me that our worldviews and perceptions are made up of individual thoughts and beliefs. Our world is, to an extent, our mental construct. I find it interesting how some people have an easier time controlling this than others.


----------



## FlightlessBird (Dec 10, 2014)

8w7 sx/so


----------



## angelcarnivore (Apr 15, 2015)

Kintsugi said:


> Hmm, interesting. I actually think I am, in part, "my body". When my body dies I will cease to exist (I _think _). What do you mean by "consciousnesses," exactly?


Your body is the vehicle your consciousness is riding. It doesn't hurt when the top layer of my skin dies and sloughs off, because my nerve endings aren't built to register cell death in that manner. It does hurt when my skin is scratched with a knife- because my nerve endings have to do their job and alert the rest of my cells to fix it. They tell me, through physical pain, through the thoughts and emotions "Go get that looked at! Where's the antiseptic?!" My blood is told "Hey, let's get a scab forming!" Does the part of my soul that was my skin cells die and go to heaven? Am I losing me every day naturally? Heck no. I am not my cells. I reside in my cells. There are so many viewpoints from which we can discuss this. I'm going to mix it up, and go at it using different syntaxes.

My brain is a physical organ- my brain's clusters of nerves hold my memories, my personality, all of my likes and dislikes. If I undergo trauma, and my personality, memory and likes and dislikes are changed by it- am I not myself anymore? No! The accident of circumstance does not change the fact I am conscious awareness in a meat sack. A meat sack I can change by diet, by surgery, by hair dye. I am not my phenotype. 

Am I my habits? No. I could start building new habits, if it were painful enough to live in a messy house (emulate 1ish and Jish tendencies) I could clean it. I could hire a maid service to clean it. Is it worth it to me now? No. But I could change. Does that change me- to stop being a messy person, and become a neat one? No. I am still me. I am still consciousness riding in a body. I'm the director behind the camera of this mad movie we call life.

When my body dies, do I die? I don't know. Do I get to keep the camera after it's busted? Probably not. But I am not the camera, I am the director. Perhaps my experience will change, dead. Perhaps I don't exist dead. Does it matter? There's flowers and sex and chocolate here! Who cares?! I can take pleasure imagining an afterlife, or comfort in the thought there is no afterlife. I'm still the director while I have the camera.



Kintsugi said:


> I agree that thoughts should not define us, however, it seems to me that our worldviews and perceptions are made up of individual thoughts and beliefs. Our world is, to an extent, our mental construct. I find it interesting how some people have an easier time controlling this than others.


It might be conceit- but I think everyone is a potential mistyped 3. It just depends how powerfully strong those neural connections are, and how desperately you want to develop new ones.

Musclebuilders, waifs, and obese people all started out as babies. We are what we do. We can change our actions (including the act of thought and belief) at any time.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

@angelcarnivore

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you defining consciousness as the human "soul"?

I think it's an interesting philosophy, but I'm a bit of a skeptic and I like to see at least some evidence of these things before I come to any firm conclusions. I'm pretty grounded in "reality". 

With regard "being oneself" (after experiencing trauma, or whatever). I personally see humans as being fluid creatures, capable of adapting and evolving in various ways that is needed or is necessary. I struggle to answer the question "who am I" because I do not see myself as a static "thing." I am organic and am forever changing. This is probably why I struggle to type myself with the Enneagram, as I see myself in all of the types, in some form or other. 

The idea of being the director of ones life is pretty self-empowering. Although, I think there are many people that struggle with this at times. It seems like a very human-issue.



> It might be conceit- but I think everyone is a potential mistyped 3. It just depends how powerfully strong those neural connections are, and how desperately you want to develop new ones.
> 
> Musclebuilders, waifs, and obese people all started out as babies. We are what we do. We can change our actions (including the act of thought and belief) at any time.


Why is everyone a mistyped 3? What about the other types?


----------



## angelcarnivore (Apr 15, 2015)

Kintsugi said:


> @angelcarnivore
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you defining consciousness as the human "soul"?


I use the word "soul" as a figurative device; I don't believe in a literal physical soul; because Consciousness is not the body- it rides the body. If you had a "soul" you could lose it under the couch cushions. "You" "Consciousness" "Soul" are interchangeable concepts that are accurate in some contexts and highly inappropriate in other contexts.



Kintsugi said:


> I think it's an interesting philosophy, but I'm a bit of a skeptic and I like to see at least some evidence of these things before I come to any firm conclusions. I'm pretty grounded in "reality".


I think that's the S in you talking.  It's a personal philosophy and works for me at the moment- so if you don't accept it, that's cool. You'll come to your own conclusions and find what works for you. "What is truth?" said that Roman guy, once.



Kintsugi said:


> With regard "being oneself" (after experiencing trauma, or whatever). I personally see humans as being fluid creatures, capable of adapting and evolving in various ways that is needed or is necessary. I struggle to answer the question "who am I" because I do not see myself as a static "thing." I am organic and am forever changing. This is probably why I struggle to type myself with the Enneagram, as I see myself in all of the types, in some form or other.
> 
> The idea of being the director of ones life is pretty self-empowering. Although, I think there are many people that struggle with this at times. It seems like a very human-issue.


Okay, like- some people, when they question the existence/non-existence of God like to ask "If God exists, why do bad things happen?" From my perspective- the arguement is irrelevant, as it doesn't DO anything. What does it matter if there is or isn't one? We're the ones who make the bad things happen to us. That's terrifying for some because they're scared to fail, or to get hurt, or to be blamed. Self-empowerment is saying "Yeah, I'm why the bad thing happened to me. This is what I learned about what I did to make the bad thing happen. And here's how I'm going to make something good come out of it."




Kintsugi said:


> Why is everyone a mistyped 3? What about the other types?


The other types exist. Everyone has the POTENTIAL to be a mistyped 3, in my view- because everyone has the potential to change; and it is the transformative nature of the 3 that, something something something, you get the drift.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

angelcarnivore said:


> I use the word "soul" as a figurative device; I don't believe in a literal physical soul; because Consciousness is not the body- it rides the body. If you had a "soul" you could lose it under the couch cushions. "You" "Consciousness" "Soul" are interchangeable concepts that are accurate in some contexts and highly inappropriate in other contexts.


Ok, but that still doesn't explain what you mean by "consciousnesses." (Unless I completely missed your point, which is possible )



> _I think that's the S in you talking.  It's a personal philosophy and works for me at the moment- so if you don't accept it, that's cool. You'll come to your own conclusions and find what works for you. "What is truth?" said that Roman guy, once._


Actually, I think it's the Se, to be specific. My INTJ partner would probably say something similar.

Yeah, as I said, it's an interesting philosophy and I appreciate it works for some and not others. Like most things.



> _Okay, like- some people, when they question the existence/non-existence of God like to ask "If God exists, why do bad things happen?" From my perspective- the arguement is irrelevant, as it doesn't DO anything. What does it matter if there is or isn't one? We're the ones who make the bad things happen to us. That's terrifying for some because they're scared to fail, or to get hurt, or to be blamed. Self-empowerment is saying "Yeah, I'm why the bad thing happened to me. This is what I learned about what I did to make the bad thing happen. And here's how I'm going to make something good come out of it."_


I agree. True self-empowerment can be scary because it requires emotional honesty and acceptance of oneself, including all the flaws that make us human. It's easy to avoid this kind of responsibility through rationalization, denial, and projection, etc.



> _The other types exist. Everyone has the POTENTIAL to be a mistyped 3, in my view- because everyone has the potential to change; and it is the transformative nature of the 3 that, something something something, you get the drift._


Hmm. Interesting.

I think everyone has the potential to embody all points on the Enneagram. Perhaps the ability to "change/adapt" is the essence of type 3 (or, at least, the positive and "healthier aspects of it). I've never really thought about it in much detail as it is one of the types I have not fully explored.


----------



## angelcarnivore (Apr 15, 2015)

Kintsugi said:


> Ok, but that still doesn't explain what you mean by "consciousnesses." (Unless I completely missed your point, which is possible )


It seems likely here. I mean "consciousness" as the director behind the camera metaphor. I don't think what I call it really matters- as it's a self-identification thing.




Kintsugi said:


> I agree. True self-empowerment can be scary because it requires emotional honesty and acceptance of oneself, including all the flaws that make us human. It's easy to avoid this kind of responsibility through rationalization, denial, and projection, etc.


I honestly do not think that the human body has mistakes. I think we over or under utilize some abilities we have to our detriment. I think we mislabel a lot of our cognitive abilities as disease when they are not utilized properly. Reframing can be helpful, rationalization, denial, etc, all have their role in easing cognitive dissonance so we can still function in unhealthy situations-- they become unhealthy when we don't leave the unhealthy situation because it fulfills a greater need. 





Kintsugi said:


> Hmm. Interesting.
> 
> I think everyone has the potential to embody all points on the Enneagram. Perhaps the ability to "change/adapt" is the essence of type 3 (or, at least, the positive and "healthier aspects of it). I've never really thought about it in much detail as it is one of the types I have not fully explored.


Yes. Yes, I agree. I think we all, at one point in our life or another, embody each type. We are more than the sum of our parts- 3s believe they will be loved by achieving, at all costs, and as so, we're very flexible when it goes there. I'm not certain a 5 or a 1 would allow the sheer discomfort that is mimicry as easily. But who knows?? Humans are fascinating.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

angelcarnivore said:


> It seems likely here. I mean "consciousness" as the director behind the camera metaphor. I don't think what I call it really matters- as it's a self-identification thing.


Okay, that makes more sense to me.



> _I honestly do not think that the human body has mistakes. I think we over or under utilize some abilities we have to our detriment. I think we mislabel a lot of our cognitive abilities as disease when they are not utilized properly. Reframing can be helpful, rationalization, denial, etc, all have their role in easing cognitive dissonance so we can still function in unhealthy situations-- they become unhealthy when we don't leave the unhealthy situation because it fulfills a greater need. _


Hmm, I believe, without making mistakes, we cannot learn and grow. I'm becoming aware that we might both be saying similar things, but the way we communicate our ideas is very different, so things are getting lost in translation here. 

I agree about labeling cognitive abilities as diseases. I have found that some people are more comfortable labeling anything that is very different to them or that is not considered "normal" as a "disorder." However, I do think that anything that makes it difficult for the person to function healthily can be considered a "disorder" or "disease." If anything, it can help validate the person more than anything. Sometimes things are out of our control, we may need outside help; it's important to accept our limitations.

Agreed, these things can be used to help us function in unhealthy situations, however, I do not think that many people know how to "control" these coping behaviors in a healthy way. My bf, for example, is able to compartmentalize emotions and "store them away" so that he can detach, and deal with the situation effectively. He is still able to bring those emotions to the surface and deal with them later on, when he is in a "safer" and more suitable environment. A lot of people end up "dissociating" from painful emotions, without actually expressing them; and then these emotions go on to influence their behavior in negative ways. That energy needs to be release somehow otherwise it gets stored inside, and clogs us up. 



> Yes. Yes, I agree. I think we all, at one point in our life or another, embody each type. We are more than the sum of our parts- 3s believe they will be loved by achieving, at all costs, and as so, we're very flexible when it goes there. I'm not certain a 5 or a 1 would allow the sheer discomfort that is mimicry as easily. But who knows?? Humans are fascinating.


Humans are fascinating. ^_^


----------



## angelcarnivore (Apr 15, 2015)

Kintsugi said:


> I'm becoming aware that we might both be saying similar things, but the way we communicate our ideas is very different, so things are getting lost in translation here.


It's okay that we're both speaking different dialects of the same language.  



Kintsugi said:


> I agree about labeling cognitive abilities as diseases. I have found that some people are more comfortable labeling anything that is very different to them or that is not considered "normal" as a "disorder." However, I do think that anything that makes it difficult for the person to function healthily can be considered a "disorder" or "disease." If anything, it can help validate the person more than anything. Sometimes things are out of our control, we may need outside help; it's important to accept our limitations.


Agreed. Context is everything when it comes to whether a behavior is healthy or unhealthy. And having the lables for the unhealthy contexts is beneficial to persons who don't understand why they are unhealthy- if it has a name, even if it's scary, it's less terrifying simply because that person knows they're not the only one, not a freak, not insane-- just has "such and such". I kind of felt that relief when I learned about Enneagram. Ah, human motivations are a definable thing? This is normal for people like me? It was like having a burden lifted that I wasn't aware I was carrying.




Kintsugi said:


> Agreed, these things can be used to help us function in unhealthy situations, however, I do not think that many people know how to "control" these coping behaviors in a healthy way. My bf, for example, is able to compartmentalize emotions and "store them away" so that he can detach, and deal with the situation effectively. He is still able to bring those emotions to the surface and deal with them later on, when he is in a "safer" and more suitable environment. A lot of people end up "dissociating" from painful emotions, without actually expressing them; and then these emotions go on to influence their behavior in negative ways. That energy needs to be release somehow otherwise it gets stored inside, and clogs us up.


LOL, I do that; and will listen to music to make me cry so that I can process some of it. Other emotions, like anger, I find harder to deal with straight off- even alone- but I'm working on it. I find day dreaming about the resolution to those issues helps, so does having a good facebook comments fight... less healthy, but I can live with it. 




Kintsugi said:


> Humans are fascinating. ^_^


We are crazy awesome primates.


----------

