# The Controversial Enneagram Opinions Thread



## Dalton

Lots of people complain about other people mistyping as 4s while typing _themselves_ as 4.

So, my controversial opinion of the day is that...



I'm Sexual 4!
...and _everybody else_ who's typed as Sx 4 is _wrong_. :crazy:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Vanilla Sky said:


> Isn't Arya a cp 6w7? She's all about proving herself, survival, principles, skepticism and safety.
> Although it's hard to properly type her given the situation she's been thrown in.


hell no. she actually doesn't give a damn about safety and scarcely shows fear the entire show. Arya is not insecure at all. she effortlessly stands up to Tywin Lannister (who is both an extremely powerful, intimidating man and someone who could potentially have a lot of leverage on her), doesn't bat an eye walking past dead corpses and impulsively kills people out of sheer vengeance while giving no fucks. she is not skeptical because she is a 6, she is skeptical because she is smart and lives in a dangerous world full of deceitful and sadistic men who abuse power on a regular basis. there isn't a drop of insecurity or self-doubt


----------



## Golden Rose

Swordsman of Mana said:


> hell no. she actually doesn't give a damn about safety and scarcely shows fear the entire show. Arya is not insecure at all. she effortlessly stands up to Tywin Lannister (who is both an extremely powerful, intimidating man and someone who could potentially have a lot of leverage on her), doesn't bat an eye walking past dead corpses and impulsively kills people out of sheer vengeance while giving no fucks. she is not skeptical because she is a 6, she is skeptical because she is smart and lives in a dangerous world full of deceitful and sadistic men who abuse power on a regular basis. there isn't a drop of insecurity or self-doubt


ISFP 8w9 7w6 4w3 sp/sx ?

I'll jump back into the character typing threads once I'm done with the series since they're usually fun.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Vanilla Sky said:


> ISFP 8w9 7w6 4w3 sp/sx ?
> 
> I'll jump back into the character typing threads once I'm done with the series since they're usually fun.


I'd say ?SFP 8w7>4w3>7w6/6w7 Sx/So


----------



## Malandro

Makoto Kino for ESFJ 8w9. 
Merle Dixon for 8w7 ESFP (I hate him tho XD)

Can't think of any more right now


----------



## Animal

Dalton said:


> ...and _everybody else_ who's typed as Sx 4 is _wrong_. :crazy:


Except me. :smilet-digitalpoint


----------



## The Scorched Earth

Dalton said:


> I'm Sexual 4!
> ...and _everybody else_ who's typed as Sx 4 is _wrong_. :crazy:


Which wing?


----------



## Dalton

The Scorched Earth said:


> Which wing?


Thinking 4w5.


----------



## Entropic

My opinions are as follows:

1. People place too much emphasis on instincts and subtypes when I think they are not nearly as integral to your being as people claim they are, and I see them more as mere background noise in relation to the rest of the enneagram system. I think the subtype system is highly fallacious and largely inaccurate and places too much emphasis on behavior and behavioral manifestations of people, instead of looking at what the enneagram is truly about, which are their underlying motivations. The simple fact that people can't even discuss the instincts and agree on what an instinct really is, proves the point. They may affect our interpersonal focus somewhat, but other than that I do honestly not see much merit when it comes to the instincts. Case in point is that the Fauvres think "intimacy" is related to sx, Mario Sikora thinks it's sp and other people such as Orpheus thinks it's so. Useless. 

2. I do not believe in the notion that some types are more or less varied than other types; I believe every type is as varied because every person is simply their own unique being and thus it becomes ridiculous to begin to compare people of types against each other when the truth is, as basic anthropological teachings tell us, you'll always find greater variance within any given group of people than between groups of people. This includes types that people somehow believe to be more homogeneous. Homogeneity doesn't really exist. 

3. People spend way too much time discussing behavior over internal psychological structures and motivations and thus lose sight of the core aspects of the enneagram being the motivations and fears. Furthermore, people pigeonhole certain traits or clusters of traits and assign them to specific types even though there is rationally no real reason why these traits or clusters of traits should be more prominent in these over other types e.g. aggression and cp6.

4. There's a tendency to discuss the extreme or exaggerated manifestations of the types instead of normal, actual people, which I'd argue is extremely counter-productive and useful as an introspective tool because no one is going to be this weird walking type caricature in real life. People just aren't like that. There's absolutely no basis or reason to call a tritype a "dragon-queen diva" for example. What does that even mean?!


----------



## aurly

Dalton said:


> Lots of people complain about other people mistyping as 4s while typing _themselves_ as 4.
> 
> So, my controversial opinion of the day is that...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm Sexual 4!
> ...and _everybody else_ who's typed as Sx 4 is _wrong_. :crazy:


Don't be such a 1, now, haha! *runs*


----------



## Dalton

aurly said:


> Don't be such a 1, now, haha! *runs*


How is this 1-ish?


----------



## aurly

Dalton said:


> How is this 1-ish?


Telling everyone they're doing it wrong :bored:

... man these smileys are ugly.


----------



## FakeLefty

Vanilla Sky said:


> ISFP 8w9 7w6 4w3 sp/sx ?
> 
> I'll jump back into the character typing threads once I'm done with the series since they're usually fun.


There's a character typing thread?


----------



## Golden Rose

FakeLefty said:


> There's a character typing thread?


In the MBTI "Guess the type" section there's plenty of threads about typing characters from any series, books or movies. That's a huge reason I joined the boards to begin with though I got bored of that too. 

Typing fictional characters/artists/musicians/writers is like crack to me!


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Might as well chime in:

1. I wonder if being SO last can sometimes result in a personality blind to how society affects their views and shapes them, and if a person with stronger SO points out social structures and the existence of prejudices, their dismissal of such a possibility is a dismissal of their own shadow. 
2. That said, a SO last could also be quite egalitarian because they don't wanna fool with those social structures. Depends on the person, really.
3. The weakness and softness of SP 6 is overblown. I fit it quite well, but I have clinical anxiety on top of this. Average SP 6s aren't going to be neurotically dependent on people. And even for me, it's not so much that I seek protection from other people than it is not wanting other people to hurt me emotionally (i.e. through inflicting or triggering guilt) or turn against me. I think that's how it is for average people of this type, only it doesn't cause an extreme reaction like it does in me.


----------



## periwinklepromise

I think social instinct descriptions are so shallow because they're written by individuals who deny its importance. The social instinct should not be confused for compliance to superego or Jungian Fe.


----------



## Chesire Tower

I think that people on Enneagram forums spend way too much time glamourizing their type = whatever it may be like they got some airy fairy degree from The Naranjo Naturopathic Moohshine Neurosis Academy.

The main reason to study it is not so you can go to some silly party and say, "Hi, my name is _____ and I'm a an X type with Y wing with blah blah blah subtype and a tritype that will open up the safe of your nearest bank vault. What's yours?"

The purpose is to understand your type's holy idea and how you're becoming disconnected from your true type's connection to essence, by being trapped in your type's particular ego fix. If you're not actively trying to figure this out and understand it; you might as well be better off studying palm reading or numerology, instead.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

1) 2s are not neither helpers nor givers, but *divas*
2) similar to what @Figure said 3s are not the grandiose, peacocking attention whores they're painted as. if anything, most 3s could do with a pinch of hubris and unconscientious display of ego, because most of them are dry as fuck
3) the core emotion of the heart center is not shame, but sadness/loneliness
4) the core emotion of the head center is not anxiety/insecurity, but confusion
5) Almost without exception, the Sexual subtype is the _least_ competent of the three subtypes of each type. in fact, even Sx 1s, Sx 3s, Sx 5s aren't all that competency oriented (Self Preservation 8, Social 2 or Self Preservation 7 are all more competency oriented than any of the Sx competency types)
6) more 3s and 7s are wannabe *1s* than wannabe 8s
7) 7s can be especially opinionated and bitchy, sometimes _all the time_.


----------



## Figure

0+n*1 said:


> This is the type of thing that makes me think of 3. I'm maybe 4-fixed (if you buy into tritype), but I definitely have a connection to 3. I'm definitely a 6 or a 9. It's hard to tell which one I am, but I feel very convinced of getting close to my core. Finally.


I agree. Which means, 3, 6, and 9 are all have an important role in how your core type works. 



charlie.elliot said:


> @_Figure_ I was also about to say that all 9 types are motivated by emptiness. A feeling of emptiness is why you have a personality type to begin with - you're trying to fill up some hole inside. For some types, it's much easier to see than others.
> 
> Personally, I see *emptiness *as being a huge thing for types 9, 2, 3, 4, and 7.
> For 8, 5, 6, and 1, it's harder to see... but I suspect it's still there somewhere.


Precisely. 

Of the types you listed as having a hard time seeing, 5 is the one I really, really can't seem to plot into that way of viewing the types. As a 1, if this helps, for me the emptiness is felt when I tell myself that being right is an self-delusion. If I'm not right, what else do I have to possibly be worth anything to anyone? 



Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_Figure_
> wow, probably the best post in this thread! XD
> a few small disagreements
> 1) 3s aren't trying to cover up their emptiness, they're trying to _fill_ their emptiness
> 2) not all types over-hype their aggression (though I love that you pointed this out, because it's common as fuck lol). that happens more in the 6, 8, 3 and 7 forums.
> 3) I don't think 6s or 9s have the most inter-type variation


Haha thanks. 

1.) Interesting. I would have chosen that description more directly for type 9, in that 9's substitute things outside of themselves, thereby filling themselves however I agree with you that 3's have significantly more in common with 9's than most people would ever guess by comparing their type descriptions. 

2.) Agreed - I wrote that a bit hastily out of annoyance XD



I have some serious issues particularly with Claudio Naranjo's writing that will be controversial, and I want to be on this thread. Actually, if I can get some spare minutes, and since we have so many materials here on PerC I want to make a collection of quotes from many of the authors - Chestnut, Maitri, Fauvres, et cetera - that I think are off base perhaps not as much as Claudio's, but misleading or crazy nonetheless. We really could use a critical read of some of these authors, instead of simply posting and standing in awe. I just need time from this insane job to write them down - more to come.


----------



## star tripper

1) Intimacy-seeking is more commonly a manifestation of so than sx. That said, intimacy should not be associated with any of the instincts as they can be a manifestation of any of the instincts or even independent of them.
2) Instinctual variants are the most insightful aspect of typology. Unfortunately, they're also the least explained and most misunderstood aspect of typology.
3) 5s are boring and I don't understand why people wanna identify as them.
4) 3s are the most misunderstood type on this site.
5) Most of the so-last people on this site aren't so-last.


----------



## Slagasauras

"10) For all their brilliant intellectual abilities, 5s have very poor intuition and often will not make connections which are not clearly spelled out for them and/or thoroughly explained. the types which have the strongest intuition are 6s, 7s and 8s."

I have to wonder; I commonly need clear cut directions, lists, and may need other forms of instruction and organization in order to do something. I don't understand the 'hidden lines' of conversation as well.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

@Swordsman of Mana I think you missed post 86.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Slagasauras said:


> "10) For all their brilliant intellectual abilities, 5s have very poor intuition and often will not make connections which are not clearly spelled out for them and/or thoroughly explained. the types which have the strongest intuition are 6s, 7s and 8s."
> 
> I have to wonder; I commonly need clear cut directions, lists, and may need other forms of instruction and organization in order to do something. I don't understand the 'hidden lines' of conversation as well.


could very well be. this is why 5s tend to struggle socially. most of the rules of the game are unwritten and you're expected to just pick them up without any explanation. 
@Angelic Gardevoir


> I think you missed post 86


ok, let's have a look


> Still, maybe 2w1s are somewhat different thanks to the 1 influence? And maybe most of the givers/helpers who happen to be 2s have a 1 wing?


the 1 wing in 2w1 doesn't make them more giving/helpful (1 isn't giving or helpful either, that wouldn't make sense). it gives them more authority, more gravitas and often a classier presentation. in my experience, 2w1s have more conviction and care less about other's opinions of them. rest assured, the 2w1 is diva-ish as well, though less often in the literal sense.


----------



## The Scorched Earth

To the point about the Sexual subtype being anti-intellectual, I can relate. I've always been considered wicked smart but I underachieved in college for a whole bunch of reasons, mostly emotional/interpersonal. But a big one was that as inquisitive and well-read as I am, prolonged debate or intellectual sparring over some particular topic bores me to tears. I'd rather just get to the "core" or the juice of something (or someone even) and move on.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Swordsman of Mana said:


> ok, let's have a look
> 
> the 1 wing in 2w1 doesn't make them more giving/helpful (1 isn't giving or helpful either, that wouldn't make sense). it gives them more authority, more gravitas and often a classier presentation. in my experience, 2w1s have more conviction and care less about other's opinions of them. rest assured, the 2w1 is diva-ish as well, though less often in the literal sense.


First of all, why couldn't someone be helpful and giving and a diva at the same time? Second, what I was getting at was the superego influence of type 1 possibly making them more principled and thus possibly more oriented to serving others. Not that 1s are inherently more giving or generous or anything, but that the combination of 2s giving to get and 1s dedication to principle would create more of a giver than 2w3. 

I'm not familiar with Game of Thrones, but from that video, I don't see much contradiction with what I've said other than insinuating that a 1 wing would tone down the divaishness? It appears to me that she's wanting to free those slaves, but wants devotion and gratitude in return. I think you're taking service oriented and giving as being some sniveling and submissive person, but that's not really what I was saying.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> First of all, why couldn't someone be helpful and giving and a diva at the same time?


I'm not saying they couldn't be, but it would definitely be paradoxical, because a diva is generally a _narcissistic_ personality who demands attention and goes after what they want without remorse. this is part of their appeal. your typical diva is a saucy character with a lot of "fuck you" who appeals to our self-indulgent, "I'm the shit" side. alternatively, a diva can have a more self-righteous, heroic sort of charisma, which is more present in the 2w1.



> Second, what I was getting at was the superego influence of type 1 possibly making them more principled and thus possibly more oriented to serving others.


I was actually about to cover this one in my next post =)
1s really aren't service oriented at all unless it's specific to one of their beliefs. in fact, in my experience, 1s are among the least caring type on the Enneagram. 



> Not that 1s are inherently more giving or generous or anything, but that the combination of 2s giving to get and 1s dedication to principle would create more of a giver than 2w3.


not really



> I'm not familiar with Game of Thrones, but from that video, I don't see much contradiction with what I've said other than insinuating that a 1 wing would tone down the divaishness?


it doesn't tone down the diva-ishness. it changes the flavor (ie, a more dignified, regal diva-ishness). it does; however, tone down the histrionics. 



> It appears to me that she's wanting to free those slaves, but wants devotion and gratitude in return. I think you're taking service oriented and giving as being some sniveling and submissive person, but that's not really what I was saying.


giving: no
service oriented: yes, that has a clear submissive connotation. 2's vice is pride. thinking of "serving" people would a bad taste in their mouth. 

that's also not her main shtick, which is that she views herself as a heroic queen who deals swift and terrible retribution upon injustice.


----------



## Psithurism

Dark and Derisive said:


> Just because you are interested in intellectual pursuits does not mean that you are a 5.


Nor being an ''intellectual'' (as a social image) or being very smart/analytical. 

I would even venture to say that you don't necessarily even have to be an ''intellectual'' to be a 5 (especially the Sx and Sp variant), other than in a very specific sense relating to the compulsion to want to preemptively scan the environment in order to feel more prepared to face the world's demands. This component is more about being an ''observer'' or a stuttering of action as Tom Condon puts it; it is not a sufficient nor a necessary condition to being an ''intellectual''.

Also, on a side-note, when someone is very keen on talking about their multiple intellectual pursuits, I tend to consider 7 for them as a possibility. Maitri coins the term ''intellectualization'' for 7's:



> _Intellectualization is another defense mechanism that seems to me even more fundamental than the_
> _others are. We can see why it is so relevant to Ennea-type Sevens in the following definition of __intellectualization: The psychological binding of the instinctual drives to intellectual activities, especially in order to __exert control over anxiety and reduce tension._


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

mushr00m said:


> Still happens a couple years after people were saying exactly what you're saying now, this problem ain't goin away. From observation, all the 5 mistypes are done by NT's by virtue of being NT. And bookish, introverted NF's. Both have no decent prior knowledge of enneagram, typed themselves with misunderstanding of the basics of the 9 types. And then they become attached to that type or whatever it is that satisfies their ego ideal which almost seems image motivated in this context. If they were say a 6 instead, the 6 descriptions do a shoddy job of saying that 6's can withdraw similar to 5 to protect themselves. Which means 5 descriptions can be too generic.


I won't lie. It's precisely because of my being an NT that I cast a heavy amount of suspicion on being a 5, because for all I know, there was a possibility that I was a 6, 9, 1, 8, or 4. I do think that a lot of the blame falls on the descriptions of the types, especially those done by Riso and Hudson, the pair whose works are, unfortunately, the most popular introduction to the Enneagram. As @Entropic had pointed out to me a few months prior, Enneagram is not about outside behavior, but internal motivations, yet Riso and Hudson seem to be doing exactly that: focusing too much on outside behaviors.

I currently type as a 5w6 after much research and reading, but I think there is still quite a bit that I have to learn in regards to the Enneagram, so I'm thinking of venturing into the works of Naranjo and Maitri at last, though I have read excerpts from Maitri's work _The Spiritual Dimension of the Enneagram_


----------



## DomNapoleon

:exterminate:My opinions: 

-People who claim ''He is either a Sp5 or a Sx 8'' (for example) are full of shit. Instincts and e-types were 2 independent systems built independently and with different groups of people. 

-90% of the people who claim to be a 4 have no idea of what type 4 is about. The same happens to 5 and 8. Oh look the 458 tritype. 

-146 tritype is so underrated compered to others.


----------



## Entropic

Verglas said:


> Nor being an ''intellectual'' (as a social image) or being very smart/analytical.
> 
> I would even venture to say that you don't necessarily even have to be an ''intellectual'' to be a 5 (especially the Sx and Sp variant), other than in a very specific sense relating to the compulsion to want to preemptively scan the environment in order to feel more prepared to face the world's demands. This component is more about being an ''observer'' or a stuttering of action as Tom Condon puts it; it is not a sufficient nor a necessary condition to being an ''intellectual''.
> 
> Also, on a side-note, when someone is very keen on talking about their multiple intellectual pursuits, I tend to consider 7 for them as a possibility. Maitri coins the term ''intellectualization'' for 7's:


I think it is Naranjo who considers 9 the actual true philosophers of the enneagram and the Fauvres link them to be pseudo-spiritual because they often outwardly represent traits such as humility that may come across as enlightened, especially in religious or spiritual contexts. One could also posit that would be true for 6s as well, who are the most attuned to existential anxiety. 



Dark and Derisive said:


> I won't lie. It's precisely because of my being an NT that I cast a heavy amount of suspicion on being a 5, because for all I know, there was a possibility that I was a 6, 9, 1, 8, or 4. I do think that a lot of the blame falls on the descriptions of the types, especially those done by Riso and Hudson, the pair whose works are, unfortunately, the most popular introduction to the Enneagram. As @entropic had pointed out to me a few months prior, Enneagram is not about outside behavior, but internal motivations, yet Riso and Hudson seem to be doing exactly that: focusing too much on outside behaviors.
> 
> I currently type as a 5w6 after much research and reading, but I think there is still quite a bit that I have to learn in regards to the Enneagram, so I'm thinking of venturing into the works of Naranjo and Maitri at last, though I have read excerpts from Maitri's work _The Spiritual Dimension of the Enneagram_


I think Riso and Hudson are excellent authors once you've done a fair bit of reading and you can understand why they connect the behaviors they do to the types. I think I've given them a little unfair amount of bad rep when I was newer to the enneagram because I found it so frustrating how their descriptions were so behavioral and it was impossible for me to type myself off them. I can only see how the behaviors match up very well looking back at it all in retrospect. It took time for me to get there though. 

So you first need to understand and have a good grasp of your own behavioral patterns and that of the types in general before I think you can view their work more objectively. This also applies as much to Helen Palmer whose works are also very behavioral, and Naranjo too, for the matter. Chestnut, being a part of Naranjo's tradition of the subtypes, would also fall there probably. 

Authors like Almaas and Maitri who are of the same tradition of emphasizing the spiritual aspect of the enneagram more, almost entirely detach from behavior and mention it very rarely and loosely; then you got lesser known authors such as Condon who are a little inbetween. Not quite as quantitative as Riso and Hudson, but not quite as spiritual as Almaas and Maitri. 

There are a lot of other authors available that I haven't really delved into yet. The intellectual aspect of 5 is more a penchant for knowledge and a thirst and drive to understand the world. I think the logic of the 5 observation is very well captured in the movie Kitchen Stories:






The beauty of the film is how it captures the problem that when you observe you aren't actually as detached as you think you are. Even if the logic is that if I observe and I do not intrude, I will be able to observe how things "naturally" are, you are actually in fact very much present and your presence disrupts any form of naturalness that would occur would you not be present. Most of all, the movie shows how one does not gain real and true knowledge and understanding via detached observation but only through direct interaction. 

It's a good movie also, so I highly recommend it, if you can find it available in English. @Shame Spiral you should watch it with @Verglas. It's originally in Swedish/Norwegian, if you haven't seen it already.


----------



## Dalton

@Swordsman of Mana I often see 4 connected to "intuition", yet you list 678 as the best intuition. What's your view on this?


----------



## Blindspots

Dark and Derisive said:


> I won't lie. It's precisely because of my being an NT that I cast a heavy amount of suspicion on being a 5, because for all I know, there was a possibility that I was a 6, 9, 1, 8, or 4. I do think that a lot of the blame falls on the descriptions of the types, especially those done by Riso and Hudson, the pair whose works are, unfortunately, the most popular introduction to the Enneagram. As Entropic had pointed out to me a few months prior, Enneagram is not about outside behavior, but internal motivations, yet Riso and Hudson seem to be doing exactly that: focusing too much on outside behaviors.


My take on this:
This page should stop being the first result for a search for enneagram. -> http://www.enneagraminstitute.com 

If I could, I'd modify the search algorithms such that this would no longer be the case. It's that strong of a feeling.

The type descriptions are cute enough to draw in casual personality quiz takers. That's all. But by oversimplifying the points of the enneagram to this degree, the depth of the system and the potential it has in describing the human nature and suggesting ways to elevate its condition, all of that tends to be obscured.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Swordsman of Mana said:


> giving: no
> service oriented: yes, that has a clear submissive connotation. 2's vice is pride. thinking of "serving" people would a bad taste in their mouth.


This is just coming down to semantics and the connotations we have for words. I don't feel like service necessarily means being submissive. In fact it could be a tool of self-aggrandizement. Think of a leader who prides themselves in "serving the people." And perhaps I link service and heroism too readily. 

Anyway, I shouldn't have gotten myself into this since I'm tired of debating.


----------



## 0+n*1

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> -People who claim ''He is either a Sp5 or a Sx 8'' (for example) are full of shit. Instincts and e-types were 2 independent systems built independently and with different groups of people.


This times 1000. I think this is mostly coming from people of the Naranjo school. 

It also annoys me when people completely ignore the middle types when it comes to typing and do the skip (as I call it). They say I am either 1 or 8. 5 or 7. 2 or 4. Why? I believe in a connected enneagram, where types have things in common with their neighbors. It makes little sense to skip the middle type, when you consider that the primary types are in the center of each center and they must embody to some extent the struggles of the other types of the same center.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Dalton said:


> @Swordsman of Mana I often see 4 connected to "intuition", yet you list 678 as the best intuition. What's your view on this?


honestly, this doesn't match up with my experience at all. they're focused primarily on their own little bubble of feelings and tend to be oblivious about what's actually going on.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> This is just coming down to semantics and the connotations we have for words. I don't feel like service necessarily means being submissive. In fact it could be a tool of self-aggrandizement. Think of a leader who prides themselves in "serving the people." And perhaps I link service and heroism too readily.
> 
> Anyway, I shouldn't have gotten myself into this since I'm tired of debating.


they might say that, but they seldom mean it. service has been connected to humility across cultures for most of history and a sign that one is down to earth.


----------



## periwinklepromise

Swordsman of Mana said:


> honestly, this doesn't match up with my experience at all. they're focused primarily on their own little bubble of feelings and tend to be oblivious about what's actually going on.


fwiw, I agree. Every _once_ in a while, a 4 will have some sort of intuition about people, but in general, 4s are too inward-focused for that kind of intuitive connection. 

Maybe some people think 4s are intuitive bc so many INFx types mistype as 4 and also ego-identify as intuitive.


----------



## Blindspots

I'm rather dissatisfied with definitions of Self-Preservation instinct. They seem limited to concerns about material existence. Would it mean that for them, fulfillment comes from having the right kinds and right amounts of resources in the form of objects? Is that really all there is to it?

It may be that I may just have overlooked better descriptions of these. Or that I may be uninformed in the first place of the point of instinctual variants.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Thymic said:


> I'm rather dissatisfied with definitions of Self-Preservation instinct. They seem limited to concerns about material existence. Would it mean that for them, fulfillment comes from having the right kinds and right amounts of resources in the form of objects? Is that really all there is to it?


it is. people tend to look for idealistic/spiritual dimensions to the instincts, but the bottom line is....they don't exist. the instinctual variants are just that: instincts. the Self Preservation instinct in particular is fairly straightforward and concrete: it's about survival, oriented to getting physical needs met (food, shelter, safety, etc). 
people try to do this with the Sexual instinct in particular and make it sound like some idealistic Disney romance bullshit subtype.



> It may be that I may just have overlooked better descriptions of these. Or that I may be uninformed in the first place of the point of instinctual variants.


if you're looking for something a little less narcissistic sounding, you might want to check out Mario Sikora's descriptions. he calls Self Preservation simply "Preserving" because it can be extended to taking care of loved ones and friends as well.


----------



## Blindspots

Swordsman of Mana said:


> it is. people tend to look for idealistic/spiritual dimensions to the instincts, but the bottom line is....they don't exist. the instinctual variants are just that: instincts. the Self Preservation instinct in particular is fairly straightforward and concrete: it's about survival, oriented to getting physical needs met (food, shelter, safety, etc).


I see, that was indeed the impression of the instinctual variants as a whole I got from the stickied threads. What made me look for alternative definitions were commentaries such as this one you mentioned:


> people try to do this with the Sexual instinct in particular and make it sound like some idealistic Disney romance bullshit subtype.


I also see this for the Social instinct, though not to the same degree as Sx, and I do think some of them are valid because of the complexity of systems of people compared to material resources.



> if you're looking for something a little less narcissistic sounding, you might want to check out Mario Sikora's descriptions. he calls Self Preservation simply "Preserving" because it can be extended to taking care of loved ones and friends as well.


Thanks for this citation, I'm on it!


----------



## Gorgon

Thymic said:


> I'm rather dissatisfied with definitions of Self-Preservation instinct. They seem limited to concerns about material existence. Would it mean that for them, fulfillment comes from having the right kinds and right amounts of resources in the form of objects? Is that really all there is to it?
> 
> It may be that I may just have overlooked better descriptions of these. Or that I may be uninformed in the first place of the point of instinctual variants.


I'm not too well-verse in enneagram, so I'm just going by own interpretation of what minimal I've read. While material security is part of the self-preservation instinct, it is by no means the only aspect of it. It's a lot more holistic than that. IMO, it's fundamentally about the endurance of the self, and that can manifest in a multitude of ways. When you look at the various sp subtypes, it gets a little complex, but ultimately the motivation is the same. For example, on the surface, the sp 4 may not look like a sp-primary since their behavioral patterns seem to run counter to the sp reticence. One theme of the sp 4 is "dauntlessness" or "recklessness." That facet of the sp 4, is in part, has to do with preserving the intensity of their feelings. They throw themselves into, at times, risky situations to heighten the intensity of their feelings. I would assume this imparts meaning onto their lives and a lack of meaning is a threat to their identity. Now, lets look at the sp 5. The sp 5 hoards and minimizes himself and his engagement with the world in order to not feel overwhelmed and engulfed by it. Overall, the sp 4 and sp 5 typically exhibit different behavioral patterns and have different fixations, yet they're ultimately concerned about the survival of the self, it's just manifested in different ways.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir

Thanatesque said:


> I'm not too well-verse in enneagram, so I'm just going by own interpretation of what minimal I've read. While material security is part of the self-preservation instinct, it is by no means the only aspect of it. It's a lot more holistic than that. IMO, it's fundamentally about the endurance of the self, and that can manifest in a multitude of ways. When you look at the various sp subtypes, it gets a little complex, but ultimately the motivation is the same. For example, on the surface, the sp 4 may not look like a sp-primary since their behavioral patterns seem to run counter to the sp reticence. One theme of the sp 4 is "dauntlessness" or "recklessness." That facet of the sp 4, is in part, has to do with preserving the intensity of their feelings. They throw themselves into, at times, risky situations to heighten the intensity of their feelings. I would assume this imparts meaning onto their lives and a lack of meaning is a threat to their identity. Now, lets look at the sp 5. The sp 5 hoards and minimizes himself and his engagement with the world in order to not feel overwhelmed and engulfed by it. Overall, the sp 4 and sp 5 typically exhibit different behavioral patterns and have different fixations, yet they're ultimately concerned about the survival of the self, it's just manifested in different ways.


I agree. Psychological and emotional needs factor into SP in my experience, not just material. And it looks to be that way for several types. SP 1 needs to keep everything in control as to not worry (although this control can be related to physical things), SP 2 needs to be secure in relationships in order to be taken care of and loved, SP 5 you already went into, SP 6 does not want to be physically or emotionally harmed by others and wants allies, SP 9 is fixated on comforts (both physical such as food and psychological such as watching TV or playing games) to fill their inner void. And there is also the issue of autonomy, which is most noticeable in SP 1, SP 3, SP 4, SP 5, and SP 8 I think. It's not something super mystical or anything, but people have more needs than just physical needs. If it's a need that doesn't really so much involve being connected to others or belonging (social) or a need for intensity and passion (sexual), it probably falls under self-preservation.


----------



## Blindspots

Thanatesque said:


> I'm not too well-verse in enneagram, so I'm just going by own interpretation of what minimal I've read. *While material security is part of the self-preservation instinct, it is by no means the only aspect of it. It's a lot more holistic than that. IMO, it's fundamentally about the endurance of the self, and that can manifest in a multitude of ways.* When you look at the various sp subtypes, it gets a little complex, but ultimately the motivation is the same. For example, on the surface, the sp 4 may not look like a sp-primary since their behavioral patterns seem to run counter to the sp reticence. One theme of the sp 4 is "dauntlessness" or "recklessness." That facet of the sp 4, is in part, has to do with preserving the intensity of their feelings. They throw themselves into, at times, risky situations to heighten the intensity of their feelings. I would assume this imparts meaning onto their lives and a lack of meaning is a threat to their identity. Now, lets look at the sp 5. The sp 5 hoards and minimizes himself and his engagement with the world in order to not feel overwhelmed and engulfed by it. Overall, the sp 4 and sp 5 typically exhibit different behavioral patterns and have different fixations, yet they're ultimately concerned about the survival of the self, it's just manifested in different ways.


This does seem to be the case; it's when Self-Preservation is defined in the context of the nine types that it starts to show more dimension, i.e. the individual's relation to the concept of survival, rather than just being set on obtaining subsistence. 

For that, I appreciate Angelic Gardevoir's summary of the Sp subtypes below.



Angelic Gardevoir said:


> I agree. *Psychological and emotional needs factor into SP in my experience, not just material. And it looks to be that way for several types.* SP 1 needs to keep everything in control as to not worry (although this control can be related to physical things), SP 2 needs to be secure in relationships in order to be taken care of and loved, SP 5 you already went into, SP 6 does not want to be physically or emotionally harmed by others and wants allies, SP 9 is fixated on comforts (both physical such as food and psychological such as watching TV or playing games) to fill their inner void. *And there is also the issue of autonomy, which is most noticeable in SP 1, SP 3, SP 4, SP 5, and SP 8 I think.* It's not something super mystical or anything, but people have more needs than just physical needs.


Yep, the psychological concerns that come into play when trying to preserve oneself, they are important to consider.



> If it's a need that doesn't really so much involve being connected to others or belonging (social) or a need for intensity and passion (sexual), it probably falls under self-preservation.


That was my basis for self-typing as sp-first XD It encompasses whatever else is not necessarily obtained through relating with others or with an object of passion.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Thymic said:


> I also see this for the Social instinct, though not to the same degree as Sx, and I do think some of them are valid because of the complexity of systems of people compared to material resources.


well, that's because the Social instinct is the only one which is intrinsically intellectual, because it is the only instinct largely concerned with concepts and relationships not directly related to the self and, at you said, it deals with more complex systems.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

@Animal
You mentioned earlier that 6 was one of the more self-absorbed types (or something along those lines), and I guess it depends on what you mean by "self-absorbed", but 6s seem to me like they can be rather observant of other people, so it's not a word I'd necessarily associate with them. I was just thinking about how it's one of the things that's very _non_-6 about me, because I'm rather self-absorbed and not usually very observative or inquisitive towards others, as I see 6s often be. (Granted, I was kinda comparing myself to someone in particular, but it makes sense for 6 in general to be that way, due to the nature of the type).


----------



## Donovan

Swordsman of Mana said:


> that's also not her main shtick, which is that she views herself as a heroic queen who deals swift and terrible retribution upon injustice.


i would say that she does what she sees as necessary to hold her power, to help others, and to keep strongly to "the person that she is". i would also say that "diva-ishness" is actually a sign of being unhealthy, as two's are too proud to view themselves in such a way (lol), and only _act_ in such a way when they sort of lose sight of themselves (or when their insecurities have gotten the best of them). 

i also don't see her as a diva (like Angelic G.). i see her as vengeful, and unwilling to give any ground whatsoever (yet still willing to hear council from others--also related to her image of "benevolent/perfect/etc."; she may even view her more harsh choices as "being no choice at all", to abstain from tainting her self conception from 'loving mother, caretaker, easer of pains' to 'furious war queen').
she is quite compassionate and nurturing when she feels it won't (again) lose ground doing so. 

some of her haughtiness when speaking to others who assume privilege or power, is a power game in itself. you can set someone on the defensive by just assuming, and then displaying, that they don't have a right to begin with, and now they are set in proving it to you as opposed to making ultimatums (she's also in a position where she can actually get away with such things). 
i have to admit actually, that that is pretty diva-like from an outside perspective, but i wonder what the other angle is for it to be viewed from. where she's coming in at that, in her psyche, justifies such behavior...
may seem like a meaningless distinction, but it can separate what someone appears to be as opposed to what they are... 
or better yet, it separates their conscious display and their unconscious display--the part that others can see but the individual is blind to--and in doing so would mean that they are at once "diva-ish" and non; opposing opposites .


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Donovan said:


> i would say that she does what she sees as necessary to hold her power, to help others, and to keep strongly to "the person that she is". i would also say that "diva-ishness" is actually a sign of being unhealthy, as two's are too proud to view themselves in such a way (lol), and only _act_ in such a way when they sort of lose sight of themselves (or when their insecurities have gotten the best of them).
> 
> i also don't see her as a diva (like Angelic G.). i see her as vengeful, and unwilling to give any ground whatsoever (yet still willing to hear council from others--also related to her image of "benevolent/perfect/etc."; she may even view her more harsh choices as "being no choice at all", to abstain from tainting her self conception from 'loving mother, caretaker, easer of pains' to 'furious war queen').
> she is quite compassionate and nurturing when she feels it won't (again) lose ground doing so.
> 
> some of her haughtiness when speaking to others who assume privilege or power, is a power game in itself. you can set someone on the defensive by just assuming, and then displaying, that they don't have a right to begin with, and now they are set in proving it to you as opposed to making ultimatums (she's also in a position where she can actually get away with such things).
> i have to admit actually, that that is pretty diva-like from an outside perspective, but i wonder what the other angle is for it to be viewed from. where she's coming in at that, in her psyche, justifies such behavior...
> may seem like a meaningless distinction, but it can separate what someone appears to be as opposed to what they are...
> or better yet, it separates their conscious display and their unconscious display--the part that others can see but the individual is blind to--and in doing so would mean that they are at once "diva-ish" and non; opposing opposites .


diva-ish can also be a healthy manifestation of confidence, sensuality, backbone and general self expression.


----------



## Donovan

Swordsman of Mana said:


> they might say that, but they seldom mean it. service has been connected to humility across cultures for most of history and a sign that one is down to earth.


lol (if i'd read further i'd have multi-quoted you to reduce all the tagging): 


what about knights, or basically what amounts to a 'king's guard' in game of thrones? obviously not every extra character in the show who played that part had a one influence--it's set in an area/time where many are just willing to kill or hold a position that may require it, just to save themselves from others--but looking at sir barristan (name/spelling?) and the brianne of tarth... each serve and find great pride in doing so, relentlessly. 
they submit, but they are not submissive, and they truly aren't submitting to the person in question, but are to an aspect of themselves (that may even be personified within those they serve). 

i also think each is a perfect example of a 1w2.


----------



## Quang

Donovan said:


> i would say that she does what she sees as necessary to hold her power, to help others, and to keep strongly to "the person that she is". i would also say that "diva-ishness" is actually a sign of being unhealthy, as two's are too proud to view themselves in such a way (lol), and only _act_ in such a way when they sort of lose sight of themselves (or when their insecurities have gotten the best of them).
> 
> i also don't see her as a diva (like Angelic G.). i see her as vengeful, and unwilling to give any ground whatsoever (yet still willing to hear council from others--also related to her image of "benevolent/perfect/etc."; she may even view her more harsh choices as "being no choice at all", to abstain from tainting her self conception from 'loving mother, caretaker, easer of pains' to 'furious war queen').
> she is quite compassionate and nurturing when she feels it won't (again) lose ground doing so.
> 
> some of her haughtiness when speaking to others who assume privilege or power, is a power game in itself. you can set someone on the defensive by just assuming, and then displaying, that they don't have a right to begin with, and now they are set in proving it to you as opposed to making ultimatums (she's also in a position where she can actually get away with such things).
> i have to admit actually, that that is pretty diva-like from an outside perspective, but i wonder what the other angle is for it to be viewed from. where she's coming in at that, in her psyche, justifies such behavior...
> may seem like a meaningless distinction, but it can separate what someone appears to be as opposed to what they are...
> or better yet, it separates their conscious display and their unconscious display--the part that others can see but the individual is blind to--and in doing so would mean that they are at once "diva-ish" and non; opposing opposites .


Yes, there's a big difference between *how others perceive the individuals* and *how the individual view themselves*. We can describe Type X as "divas, self-absorbed, seductive" etc however, this isn't how the individuals would describe themselves. All types have a favored self-image and attempt to express themselves congruently but some tend to end up misunderstood (i.e. misunderstood genius SX4). Distortions can also occur as a result of projections. This is why there is a risk of creating a skewed definition of the enneagram types when dealing with other types, and why the enneagram is mainly for personal use.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Quang said:


> Yes, there's a big difference between *how others perceive the individuals* and *how the individual view themselves*. We can describe Type X as "divas, self-absorbed, seductive" etc however, this isn't how the individuals would describe themselves. All types have a favored self-image and attempt to express themselves congruently but some tend to end up misunderstood (i.e. misunderstood genius SX4). Distortions can also occur as a result of projections.
> 
> This is why there is a risk of unwittingly creating a skewed definition of the enneagram types when typing others, because our self-projections comes into play and why the enneagram is mainly for personal use.


"misunderstood genius" is more how 5, Social 4 and 6 view themselves. Sx 4s view themselves like 8s


----------



## aurly

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Sx 4s view themselves like 8s


Not even close. Are you confusing viewed by self with viewed by others?


----------



## fawning

^ I'll chime in to say 8 tends to be how I (sx 4w5) try to portray myself to others, but my view of myself is pretty inevitably beating myself in the face for my inability to actually remain emotionally stable enough to do shit about anything, and too emotionally attached to be ruthless in industry.

8 is "I worked for what I have, and I deserve what I worked for, I defied the odds and I'll keep striving." and sx 4 is "I pour myself into my work, it's my passion," to your face and then "I bled myself dry _for you_ and what have I got in return?? FUCK! Where's my record deal? Where's my music video?! FUCK THIS! FUCK YOU! I DON'T EVEN WANT TO BE FAMOUS. THIS IS ALL YOUR FUCKING FAULT." :grief: behind the scenes. Whether you keep that to yourself or not is another matter, haha.


----------



## Entropic

fawning said:


> ^ I'll chime in to say 8 tends to be how I (sx 4w5) try to portray myself to others, but my view of myself is pretty inevitably beating myself in the face for my inability to actually remain emotionally stable enough to do shit about anything, and too emotionally attached to be ruthless in industry.
> 
> 8 is "I worked for what I have, and I deserve what I worked for, I defied the odds and I'll keep striving." and sx 4 is "I pour myself into my work, it's my passion," to your face and then "I bled myself dry _for you_ and what have I got in return?? FUCK! Where's my record deal? Where's my music video?! FUCK THIS! FUCK YOU! I DON'T EVEN WANT TO BE FAMOUS. THIS IS ALL YOUR FUCKING FAULT." :grief: behind the scenes. Whether you keep that to yourself or not is another matter, haha.


Well to be honest, I relate equally much to your 4 description here. It's more like, from the 8 POV, I give so much to you and you don't give anything in return. What does it say about what I mean to you? I'm strong for you, I carry you when you need support, I hold your hand, I do all these things and where's the love I think I deserve for giving you all of this of myself? It's more 2-ish, than 4-ish envy.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> "misunderstood genius" is more how 5, Social 4 and 6 view themselves. Sx 4s view themselves like 8s


If sx 4s honestly view themselves like 8s view themselves, logic says they are more likely 8s than 4s, lol. There's a world of difference between how 4s and 8s view themselves.


----------



## fuliajulia

Eh, I'd say that on most sitcoms they start out with each character being a stereotypical version of a different enneagram type, but later on they'll give them whichever type fits the episode because screw plot lines and consistency.


----------



## Donovan

Quang said:


> Yes, there's a big difference between *how others perceive the individuals* and *how the individual view themselves*. We can describe Type X as "divas, self-absorbed, seductive" etc however, this isn't how the individuals would describe themselves. All types have a favored self-image and attempt to express themselves congruently but some tend to end up misunderstood (i.e. misunderstood genius SX4). Distortions can also occur as a result of projections. This is why there is a risk of creating a skewed definition of the enneagram types when dealing with other types, and why the enneagram is mainly for personal use.


true, but i think there's still something to the view and the unconscious view that brings out a duality to each person--making them truly neither, but in fact both--and the prominence of each has more to do with their health overall. (this doesn't counter what you've said, but i think it's an important facet that is lost when people try to divy out another's enneagram... of course, it makes it more complicated, and so again puts it back in the use of "personal").


----------



## Pressed Flowers

may I ask how 9s would falsely see themselves?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Pressed Flowers said:


> may I ask how 9s would falsely see themselves?


Less amazing than they really are. :crying:

Just kidding, mostly, but I do imagine for a 9 it can be easy to see themselves as rather simple, without that necessarily being the case.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

aurly said:


> Not even close. Are you confusing viewed by self with viewed by others?


no, I'm not. I get my information from students of Naranjo who teach seminars. Sx 4s have a very different view of themselves than other 4s


----------



## aurly

Swordsman of Mana said:


> no, I'm not. I get my information from students of Naranjo who teach seminars. Sx 4s have a very different view of themselves than other 4s


That's not what you said earlier. How do sx 4s see themselves like 8s?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

aurly said:


> That's not what you said earlier. How do sx 4s see themselves like 8s?


my statements were not contradictory. anyway, they view themselves like 8s because there is a general belief of "the world has hurt me, I need me" (though, in the case of the 8, it's more more generalized. Sx 4 is more "YOU made me suffer!" Sx 4 is more vindictive witch who puts a hex on you). probably the biggest difference is that Sx 4 has a wider range of emotions, is more prone to blowing up and swings from feelings superior to inferior. 
@Entropic
many types have a similar self image. it's not something exclusive to one type or another.


----------



## Quang

Vanilla Sky said:


> People living in nordic countries are more introverted on average instead and less inclined to any kind of outward dramatics. I'm a foreigner myself and I've traveled across a large number of countries (gearing up to get back into it and leave for good!) and I think that individuality is absolutely the key but it'll still be misunderstood if you try to read someone's action from a perspective that's not theirs. No matter what, people tend to be influence by whatever they come across while growing up.


Having lived within Scandinavia for 12 years, I can confirm this. What characterizes the Nordic regions is the emphasis on the group, duty, social-well, being rather than individual well-being. As a result of this, there is a sense of stability and transparency within the working environment. Natives within these regions are perceived as introverted, colder, distant, reserved compared to the more hearty, outgoing, passionate 4-7ish traits of the warmer Latin cultures such as Italy, France, Portugal, Spain, or Brazil. One could say that people behave more SX-ish in warmer climates, while more behave SP-ish in colder climates. Work with the Scandinavians, party with the Latins


----------



## Golden Rose

Quang said:


> Work with the Scandinavians, party with the Latins


Definitely! This is pretty much my own experience too as an Italian who's spent a summer in Sweden. 
It's interesting to me that you see Latin culture as 4-ish for example, I wouldn't have made the association.

See? This is what I love about discussing different individual perspectives.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Vanilla Sky said:


> Definitely! This is pretty much my own experience too as an Italian who's spent a summer in Sweden.
> It's interesting to me that you see Latin culture as 4-ish for example, I wouldn't have made the association.
> 
> See? This is what I love about discussing different individual perspectives.


I see it as 2-ish personally


----------



## Quang

Vanilla Sky said:


> Definitely! This is pretty much my own experience too as an Italian who's spent a summer in Sweden.
> It's interesting to me that you see Latin culture as 4-ish for example, I wouldn't have made the association.
> 
> See? This is what I love about discussing different individual perspectives.


The Latin cultures carry a long history of aesthetics, romance, and pleasurable aspects of life which is very SXish (2, 4, 7)- Roma: "do it with your heart". On the negative side, focusing on our SX 'passions' give rise to self-indulgent, libertine, self-entitled behaviors which creates issues i.e. corruption, bribery, black business when it comes to work (refer to Greece's economy right now).


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Kipposhi said:


> You get my thousandth post!
> No I agree with the bolded part...don't think 6s have to act more "nervous" than anyone else, their anxiety isn't about being a nervous wreck or anything...but what's always struck me about his writing is his commitment to reason and the way he generally takes issue to "authority".


nervous and nervous energy aren't quite the same thing. most head type (especially 6s) will clearly display the latter. you have a point about the head center themes in his work though



> I think it's a bit unfair to type someone according to one-word, though. Especially if you're using _seductive_ with a sexual connotation, especially when that person is an octogenarian, and a nun. (I don't know what she is, actually, but I want better reasoning before making up my mind). And of course, everyone's tastes may vary, as to seafood markets.


wasn't using it in the sexual sense (as you said, that would be an absurd way to type a nun). limited accounts I've come across describe her as more harsh, intensely dutiful. 2s are more socially pleasing, charming, they get you to do things for them because you are enamored by them, not out of appeals to superego as with 1s and some 6s (and Social 7s).



> Yes, I know what Naranjo says about social 2s. The point is, beyond the few words there, most of the rest of his social 2 description wouldn't apply personally to Napoleon. It wouldn't override the necessity for fitting the core requirements of being type 2, eg, feeling rejectable and trying to stave that off by being as pleasing as possible, seeing oneself as a loving person, having good people skills, or even being seductive...none of which was true of the man.


unhealthy 2s don't view themselves as loving. they can be some of the most vicious, narcissistic people you will ever meet and take on many of the anti-superego traits of 8 
oh, and Napoleon felt plenty rejectable, even if he was able to mask it better when Josephine wasn't leaving him around by the cock.



> I'm eager to hear your reasoning on that one too. I don't know what he is either, but will listen to a good argument.


he is a creature of impulse and seduction via sheer animal charisma. I don't have as much of an objective argument here as much as going by vibe. 




> Also, he's not saying ignore behaviors.


he has in the past, on more than one occasion 



> He's saying they can be misleading if you don't understand what's driving them. None of it's objective data, it's not a science.


while no one is suggesting they are infallible, behavioral observations are considered objective data in soft sciences.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

more controversial typings
- Bill Cosby is not a 2. he is an 8 in disguise
- Sean Connery is 8w7 Sp/Sx rather than 8w9 Sx/Sp
- Donald Trump is the most blatantly obvious Sexual 8w7 on the planet. 3 is a ridiculous typing for him because he gives _zero_ fucks about how much everyone hates him
- Johnny Cash is an Sp 9, not an 8


----------



## Lord Bullingdon

Swordsman of Mana said:


> nervous and nervous energy aren't quite the same thing. most head type (especially 6s) will clearly display the latter. you have a point about the head center themes in his work though


You used the word "nervous", though. Perhaps a better term would simply be "head energy" or something clearly enneagram related.



> wasn't using it in the sexual sense (as you said, that would be an absurd way to type a nun). limited accounts I've come across describe her as more harsh, intensely dutiful. 2s are more socially pleasing, charming, they get you to do things for them because you are enamored by them, not out of appeals to superego as with 1s and some 6s (and Social 7s).


OK fair enough.



> unhealthy 2s don't view themselves as loving. they can be some of the most vicious, narcissistic people you will ever meet and take on many of the anti-superego traits of 8


Twos are also very good at self-delusion, so while outwardly they may be obviously aggressive, vicious, and controlling, they still do think they're doing it with the best of intentions. They are certainly aware of their anger and indignation...but yes, they really do believe they're ultimately in the right, and that they're acting from love.

Also, I doubt it that a truly unhealthy type would be able to rise to power or maintain it for 15 years.



> oh, and Napoleon felt plenty rejectable, even if he was able to mask it better *when Josephine wasn't leaving him around by the cock.*


I'm sure he felt rejectable, but more because he was bullied as a child. (But _I_ feel rejectable, and I'm no 2.) The key is that _the 2 tries to make themselves pleasing to others_ because of it, and Napoleon's attitude was more akin to "Fuck off". Even with his wife, he vented his rage and then got his revenge by considering divorce and sleeping with someone else--not by trying to win her back in any way. 

Incidentally, you say of them in the bold what Naranjo said of the male 8, female 2 dynamic.



> he is a creature of impulse and seduction via sheer animal charisma. I don't have as much of an objective argument here as much as going by vibe.


OK, but I think a 6 could do that too. How would you define animal charisma, btw? I've never heard that.



> he has in the past, on more than one occasion


Didn't see it.



> while no one is suggesting they are infallible, behavioral observations are considered objective data in soft sciences.


I don't think enneagram even qualifies as a soft science, though. It's a self-help tool, and a map of human psychological patterns, but the scientific method is not involved.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Kipposhi said:


> You used the word "nervous", though. Perhaps a better term would simply be "head energy" or something clearly enneagram related.


fair enough, consider my point clarified



> Twos are also very good at self-delusion, so while outwardly they may be obviously aggressive, vicious, and controlling, they still do think they're doing it with the best of intentions. They are certainly aware of their anger and indignation...but yes, they really do believe they're ultimately in the right, and that they're acting from love.


2w1s have some of the delusional narcissism common in 7s, but unhealthy 2w3s usually know they're bad bitches. Klaus Mikaelson and Katherine Pierce (Social and Sexual 2 respectively) are great examples



> Also, I doubt it that a truly unhealthy type would be able to rise to power or maintain it for 15 years.


look at Hitler, Hideyoshi Toyotomi or Rasputin. each stayed in power for a very long time



> I'm sure he felt rejectable, but more because he was bullied as a child. (But _I_ feel rejectable, and I'm no 2.) The key is that _the 2 tries to make themselves pleasing to others_ because of it, and Napoleon's attitude was more akin to "Fuck off". Even with his wife, he vented his rage and then got his revenge by considering divorce and sleeping with someone else--not by trying to win her back in any way.


I never argued that only 2s feel rejected rejectable. it was you who used it as a reason why he is not a 2, but I disagreed



> Incidentally, you say of them in the bold what Naranjo said of the male 8, female 2 dynamic.


fair enough (though I happen to disagree with him on this)



> OK, but I think a 6 could do that too. How would you define animal charisma, btw? I've never heard that.


6s can be aggressive and polarizing, but they don't have the charisma of Sexual 8. charisma is a kind of personal magnetism which overwhelms/awestrucks people and compels them to do things. Sexual 8 is very much a "cult /leader/barbarian" personality




> I don't think enneagram even qualifies as a soft science, though. It's a self-help tool, and a map of human psychological patterns, but the scientific method is not involved.


either way, my point is that behavioral observations can be considered evidence


----------



## Lord Bullingdon

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 2w1s have some of the delusional narcissism common in 7s, but unhealthy 2w3s usually know they're bad bitches. Klaus Mikaelson and Katherine Pierce (Social and Sexual 2 respectively) are great examples


I don't know who they are so I can't comment, but I can say that wing doesn't make much of a difference here--2s have a super-ego imperative of being loving, caring, considerate people. Again, they can certainly feel enraged and entitled to their due, but they're also a shame-based type and don't want to be perceived as inherently unloveable.



> look at Hitler, Hideyoshi Toyotomi or Rasputin. each stayed in power for a very long time


I have looked at them, and I don't consider any of these men unhealthy. Especially in the case of Hitler, this is something we tell ourselves to dehumanize him. If he must be like the rest of humanity and have a type, he's at least going to be totally insane and at the lowest levels of health. Horrifying to think he might be average.

I have actually been to the unhealthy levels. It's a real phenomenon, it takes some doing to get there, and most people don't ever reach those levels. And when you're there, you're so delusional and your patterns so frayed, that you basically aren't socially functional anymore. I'd find it very extraordinary if a world leader actually was truly unhealthy as a psychological baseline.



> I never argued that only 2s feel rejected rejectable. it was you who used it as a reason why he is not a 2, but I disagreed


That actually wasn't the reason I used. I used "rejectable" to show how 2s shift into being pleasing, and that is the real reason he's not a 2. He didn't use those mechanisms, and it's clear from his personal behavior and attitudes.



> 6s can be aggressive and polarizing, but they don't have the charisma of Sexual 8. charisma is a kind of personal magnetism which overwhelms/awestrucks people and compels them to do things. Sexual 8 is very much a "cult /leader/barbarian" personality


I know what charisma is, I've just never heard of "animal charisma". But 6s can certainly be charismatic--people say Hitler is a 6, after all, and he was certainly a cult leader and barbarian. Whether or not we actually take Hitler as a 6, it is _possible_ for a 6 to be like this. 

I'd like to know more about him (Charles Manson) before ruling one way or another, though.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Kipposhi said:


> I don't know who they are so I can't comment, but I can say that wing doesn't make much of a difference here--2s have a super-ego imperative of being loving, caring, considerate people. Again, they can certainly feel enraged and entitled to their due, but they're also a shame-based type and don't want to be perceived as inherently unloveable.


I've taken issue with this for a long time. the original type 2 described in literature is the furthest thing from superego. Naranjo explicitly calls 2 an _id_ type (he later describes 4, 5 and 1 as superego).

Sexual 2 in particular is about as Id as it gets







> I have looked at them, and I don't consider any of these men unhealthy. Especially in the case of Hitler, this is something we tell ourselves to dehumanize him. If he must be like the rest of humanity and have a type, he's at least going to be totally insane and at the lowest levels of health. Horrifying to think he might be average.


you can hear it in the way he speaks. he is a neurotic, paranoid mess. for a more psychologically stable dictator, look at Fidel Castro



> I have actually been to the unhealthy levels. It's a real phenomenon, it takes some doing to get there, and most people don't ever reach those levels. And when you're there, you're so delusional and your patterns so frayed, that you basically aren't socially functional anymore. I'd find it very extraordinary if a world leader actually was truly unhealthy as a psychological baseline.


there are many ways in which people become unhealthy. this is only one of them



> That actually wasn't the reason I used. I used "rejectable" to show how 2s shift into being pleasing, and that is the real reason he's not a 2. He didn't use those mechanisms, and it's clear from his personal behavior and attitudes.


....until he met Josephine



> I know what charisma is, I've just never heard of "animal charisma". But 6s can certainly be charismatic--people say Hitler is a 6, after all, and he was certainly a cult leader and barbarian. Whether or not we actually take Hitler as a 6, it is _possible_ for a 6 to be like this.


imo, Hitler's strongest weapon was appeal to fear, not influence via charisma



> I'd like to know more about him (Charles Manson) before ruling one way or another, though.


very much the same. dare devil-y, loved attention, charismatic, always getting into trouble


----------



## Lord Bullingdon

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I've taken issue with this for a long time. the original type 2 described in literature is the furthest thing from superego. Naranjo explicitly calls 2 an _id_ type (he later describes 4, 5 and 1 as superego).


What do you take issue with though? Those listed are some of the more immoveable parts of the type--ego ideals, feeling/shame triad. It's part of the structure of the type. It's not _everything_ about it, but honest introspection on the part of the 2 should uncover these themes.

Well if you ever decide you're a core 2, I'd love to hear more about how this works and doesn't work from your personal perspective. 



> Sexual 2 in particular is about as Id as it gets


Define "id", though.



> you can hear it in the way he speaks. he is a neurotic, paranoid mess. for a more psychologically stable dictator, look at Fidel Castro


Maybe you hear that, but I don't. In his speeches, I see a man speaking theatrically and forcefully. But there's something wrong in typing a politician based on speeches, anyway.



> there are many ways in which people become unhealthy. this is only one of them


You speak like you know a lot about this. Tell me.



> ....until he met Josephine


His empire was driven by pragmatic concerns, not by the desire to impress one woman (which would strike me as being a SX-first issue somehow, anyway). In the end, he divorced her due to her inability to conceive. Then he continued on with his empire, even after her death when he made his resurgence.



> imo, Hitler's strongest weapon was appeal to fear, not influence via charisma


Actually, very little of Hitler's platform revolved around "persecuting the Jews". It was mostly about rebuilding Germany and creating an empire of German greatness. Eliminating undesirables was a small part of it. Vision, not fear, was involved in this.



> very much the same. dare devil-y, loved attention, charismatic, always getting into trouble


MUST...DO...RESEARCH


----------



## DomNapoleon

Swordsman of Mana said:


> imo, Hitler's strongest weapon was appeal to fear, not influence via charisma


This is total bullshit. Hilter was a 7w8.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> This is total bullshit. Hilter was a 7w8.


Why do you think that? Do you relate to him


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> This is total bullshit. Hilter was a 7w8.


lmao! what?

wait....you're Phoenix_Rebirth? I'm sorry but....no. you are like the polar opposite of 7w8 mate.


----------



## DomNapoleon

Swordsman of Mana said:


> lmao! what?
> 
> wait....you're Phoenix_Rebirth? I'm sorry but....no. you are like the polar opposite of 7w8 mate.


Says the person who barely knows me :exterminate:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> Says the person who barely knows me :exterminate:


I don't barely know you, but ok. I shouldn't have brought it up anyway. for some reason I thought I was on the gentle mistype thread


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

Being an Enneagram 3 doesn't mean you're ACTUALLY successful. It just means you want to have the IMAGE of being successful, regardless of whether you actually have been successful.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> This is total bullshit. Hilter was a 7w8.


I have to second @Swordsman of Mana's comment about Hitler's strong appeal to fear. Besides, I don't recall any account of Hitler's life that indicates that he used gluttony to distract himself from his dark side or his fears. If anything, he was rather indulgent of his dark side and his unhealthy martyr complex and incredibly, indeed, almost anally self-controlled when it came to worldly, sensate pleasures, completely abstaining from drinking and smoking, and resultantly, his extreme self-control in one aspect of his life let out in his frequent bouts of temper in other areas.

I would say Hitler was either a 6w5 > 1w2 > 4w5 sx/so or a 1w2 > 6w5 > 4w5 so/sx.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

controversial combination typings which are more common than people think
- __FP Sexual 1s
- E_TJ Social 2s
- I_FP Sexual 5s
- _NFJ Social 7s
- _NTJ Self Preservation 7s
- __FP Self Preservation 2s
- ESTP 2s of any subtype
- INTJ Sexual 4s 



Dark and Derisive said:


> I have to second @Swordsman of Mana's comment about Hitler's strong appeal to fear. Besides, I don't recall any account of Hitler's life that indicates that he used gluttony to distract himself from his dark side or his fears. If anything, he was rather indulgent of his dark side and his unhealthy martyr complex and incredibly, indeed, almost anally self-controlled when it came to worldly, sensate pleasures, completely abstaining from drinking and smoking, and resultantly, his extreme self-control in one aspect of his life let out in his frequent bouts of temper in other areas.
> 
> I would say Hitler was either a 6w5 > 1w2 > 4w5 sx/so or a 1w2 > 6w5 > 4w5 so/sx.


the former. he was not stable enough to be a 1 (compare him to Margaret Thatcher).


----------



## The Scorched Earth

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - INTJ Sexual 4s


What a sexy-sounding combination.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

The Scorched Earth said:


> What a sexy-sounding combination.


you can have it. I'm not into sex with vampires or dark witches :laughing:


----------



## fawning

Swordsman of Mana said:


> you can have it. I'm not into sex with vampires or dark witches :laughing:


Surely your traditional evil witch is deeply Feeling?


----------



## Quang

fawning said:


> Surely your traditional evil witch is deeply Feeling?


Isn't this an average SX4 day?


----------



## fawning

Quang said:


> Isn't this an average SX4 day?


Very nice! :subdued:

_Sometimes_ I like to take a break from throwing misogynists out the window in order to focus on my growing sex cult and lure naive, easily fascinated young sweethearts to their ultimate doom. Everyone needs a day off!

but for real if you're as heavy on the feelings and introspection as has been my experience of sx 4, you need heaps of downtime for every emotional engagement like that


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

Swordsman of Mana said:


> controversial combination typings which are more common than people think
> - __FP Sexual 1s
> - E_TJ Social 2s
> - I_FP Sexual 5s
> - _NFJ Social 7s
> - _NTJ Self Preservation 7s
> - __FP Self Preservation 2s
> - ESTP 2s of any subtype
> - INTJ Sexual 4s
> 
> the former. he was not stable enough to be a 1 (compare him to Margaret Thatcher).


Lol. That's funny, I was actually thinking yesterday that I could be an INTJ 7w6 sp/so. Any notable examples of INTJ 7s? I think you typed Col. Hans Landa from _Inglourious Basterds_ as an INTJ 7w8 sp/sx a while back? Additionally, some type Littlefinger as a sp 7, but he strikes me as more of a 3w4 so/sp.

As for the thing about 1s and stability, wouldn't you say level of health matters, thereby making it entirely possible that Hitler was a 1 disintegrating to a 4, though I will concede counterphobic 6w5 _probably_ makes more sense.


----------



## DomNapoleon

Dark and Derisive said:


> I have to second @_Swordsman of Mana_'s comment about Hitler's strong appeal to fear. Besides, I don't recall any account of Hitler's life that indicates that he used gluttony to distract himself from his dark side or his fears. If anything, he was rather indulgent of his dark side and his unhealthy martyr complex and incredibly, indeed, almost anally self-controlled when it came to worldly, sensate pleasures, completely abstaining from drinking and smoking, and resultantly, his extreme self-control in one aspect of his life let out in his frequent bouts of temper in other areas.
> 
> I would say Hitler was either a 6w5 > 1w2 > 4w5 sx/so or a 1w2 > 6w5 > 4w5 so/sx.



You clearly haven't read his Bio. Hitler was constantly escaping from reality. When he was young he was constantly daydreaming and painting. Plus, Hitler had an extremely optimistic mind, to the point of being nutts. He believed that wanting something = having it. If that is not a 7 trait i don't know what it is. roud:

And more, it seems like you belong to the Naranjitos school, typing Hilter as either a sx 6 or a so 1. *Facepalm* Instincts and enneagram are very 2 separated things


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> You clearly haven't read his Bio. Hitler was constantly escaping from reality. When he was young he was constantly daydreaming and painting. Plus, Hitler had an extremely optimistic mind, to the point of being nutts. He believed that wanting something = having it. If that is not a 7 trait i don't know what it is. roud:


I have read Hitler's biography. Two works, in fact. _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_ by William Shirer goes quite into depth about Hitler's life, as does Ian Kershaw's book.

What you're basically telling me is that daydreaming and painting automatically equates to one being a 7. While it can often be true of 7s that they want to escape reality, it is not something limited to 7s. In fact, ironically enough, 7s' means of escaping from reality is actually _indulging_ in it, and a glance at Hitler's life is enough to see that he was indeed NOT very indulgent of the world. Contrast to someone like Stalin, an 8w7 so/sp, whose 7 wing gave him a gusto for drinking, dancing, sex and poetry. Different types may want to escape reality for different reasons. Hitler's method of escaping reality was by holding himself to, what he perceived to be, high moral standards, which further indicates a 1 fix. Additionally, his entire mentality was based on what he perceived to be personal confrontation between the forces of right and wrong, such as encountering Jewish pimps in Vienna and equating it to the supposed "poisonous" influence of the Jewish people. 

Also, having an optimistic mind is not just a 7 trait. You forget the positive outlook triad includes types 2 and 9 as well. So, it is much more likely that he had a strong wing influence rather than having a 7 fix or being a core 7. I'm actually going to recant my earlier statement and say that he was an unhealthy 1w2 so/sx disintegrating to 4. I say 2 wing because he mostly sought to exert power and influence of his standards over the minds and hearts of the German people. 

So, for Hitler I'm going to say INFJ 1w2 > 6w5 > 4w5 so/sx.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Dark and Derisive said:


> Lol. That's funny, I was actually thinking yesterday that I could be an INTJ 7w6 sp/so. Any notable examples of INTJ 7s? I think you typed Col. Hans Landa from _Inglourious Basterds_ as an INTJ 7w8 sp/sx a while back? Additionally, some type Littlefinger as a sp 7, but he strikes me as more of a 3w4 so/sp.


Little Finger is Social-last as hell. he is another good example of INTJ 7w8 Sp/Sx along with Hans (he is all about material gain and self preservation, not status or reputation. those are simply tools.). another good example of INTJ 7 Sp/Sx is Yuri Orlov from Lord of War (could see either wing, maybe a weak 8 wing)



> As for the thing about 1s and stability, wouldn't you say level of health matters, thereby making it entirely possible that Hitler was a 1 disintegrating to a 4, though I will concede counterphobic 6w5 _probably_ makes more sense.


disintegrated 1s are not neurotic or histrionic. they're more bitter, entitled, envious and punitive. think Frollo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

Laziness and stagnation are not things limited exclusively to 9s. Even the high-intensity types like 3w4 and 8w7 will be prone to stagnation and laziness at times.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> You clearly haven't read his Bio. Hitler was constantly escaping from reality. When he was young he was constantly daydreaming and painting. Plus, Hitler had an extremely optimistic mind, to the point of being nutts. He believed that wanting something = having it. If that is not a 7 trait i don't know what it is. roud:
> 
> And more, it seems like you belong to the Naranjitos school, typing Hilter as either a sx 6 or a so 1. *Facepalm* Instincts and enneagram are very 2 separated things


 why don't you actually read some Enneagram sources before you start getting condescending toward mine? I would understand if you'd done some extensive study of Almaas, Maitri, Palmer and Ichazo, but you come at me with nothing but your lil lines of tertiary Ti logic strings and think they are superior to expert opinions. this is why I have been ignoring your several attempts to get me to validate your self-typing at the given time and given little energy to debating the types of fictional characters and historical figures with you. 

and for the record, Naranjo types Hitler as _Social_ 6 or Sexual 4. he's never typed Hitler as a 1 (which would be a ridiculous typing. there is nothing gut center about him). personally, I am on the fence between Sexual and Social 6 for him.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

Swordsman of Mana said:


> why don't you actually read some Enneagram sources before you start getting condescending toward mine? I would understand if you'd done some extensive study of Almaas, Maitri, Palmer and Ichazo, but you come at me with nothing but your lil lines of tertiary Ti logic strings and think they are superior to expert opinions. this is why I have been ignoring your several attempts to get me to validate your self-typing at the given time and given little energy to debating the types of fictional characters and historical figures with you.
> 
> and for the record, Naranjo types Hitler as _Social_ 6 or Sexual 4. he's never typed Hitler as a 1 (which would be a ridiculous typing. there is nothing gut center about him). personally, I am on the fence between Sexual and Social 6 for him.


Would you be able to buy Hitler as a 1w2 _fix_?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Dark and Derisive said:


> Would you be able to buy Hitler as a 1w2 _fix_?


yes, I could see that.


----------



## FakeLefty

Dark and Derisive said:


> I have read Hitler's biography. Two works, in fact. _The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich_ by William Shirer goes quite into depth about Hitler's life, as does Ian Kershaw's book.
> 
> What you're basically telling me is that daydreaming and painting automatically equates to one being a 7. While it can often be true of 7s that they want to escape reality, it is not something limited to 7s. In fact, ironically enough, 7s' means of escaping from reality is actually _indulging_ in it, and a glance at Hitler's life is enough to see that he was indeed NOT very indulgent of the world. Contrast to someone like Stalin, an 8w7 so/sp, whose 7 wing gave him a gusto for drinking, dancing, sex and poetry. Different types may want to escape reality for different reasons. Hitler's method of escaping reality was by holding himself to, what he perceived to be, high moral standards, which further indicates a 1 fix. Additionally, his entire mentality was based on what he perceived to be personal confrontation between the forces of right and wrong, such as encountering Jewish pimps in Vienna and equating it to the supposed "poisonous" influence of the Jewish people.
> 
> Also, having an optimistic mind is not just a 7 trait. You forget the positive outlook triad includes types 2 and 9 as well. So, it is much more likely that he had a strong wing influence rather than having a 7 fix or being a core 7. I'm actually going to recant my earlier statement and say that he was an unhealthy 1w2 so/sx disintegrating to 4. I say 2 wing because he mostly sought to exert power and influence of his standards over the minds and hearts of the German people.
> 
> So, for Hitler I'm going to say INFJ 1w2 > 6w5 > 4w5 so/sx.


Huh, I thought that Stalin was an unhealthy 6w5. He seemed to see danger in anything and everyone around him, never trusting even his closest allies- during the Stalin era one surefire way to get yourself killed was to be Stalin's "friend."


----------



## Animal

Dark and Derisive said:


> Would you be able to buy Hitler as a 1w2 _fix_?


I would probably say 6w5 1w2 4wX So/Sp


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

FakeLefty said:


> Huh, I thought that Stalin was an unhealthy 6w5. He seemed to see danger in anything and everyone around him, never trusting even his closest allies- during the Stalin era one surefire way to get yourself killed was to be Stalin's "friend."


I'd say he was an unhealthy social 8. Even as a kid, Stalin's desire for power was very much manifested in the form of wanting to be the leader of the pack, so to speak. In the sense of demanding loyalty, social Eights can often resemble Sixes. To quote Maitri:



> Social Eights attempt to resolve their sense of not belonging by maintaining friendly social relationships. Being a "buddy" is what Social Eights see as key to resolving their social insecurity. Friendship here is a very deep bond, one implying undying trust and loyalty, a sense of fraternity and being part of the same gang. An Eight's domineering and controlling tendencies manifest in the area of social relationships for a Social Eight. Breeches of trust or friendship might result in a vendetta and are not easy for a Social Eight to forgive. The passion of lust manifests here in the passionate and possessive nature of these bonds with others.


Indeed, most descriptions of the so 8 will place a great emphasis on loyalty from those in their command as well as their friends and an intolerance of trust breaches. Then again, I don't think 8s are very tolerant of breaches of trust in general, but social 8s more so. Additionally, the thing that makes Stalin an 8 rather than a 6 is that his style of confrontation was almost always direct, in contrast to the ambivalence of reactivity that you would find in a cp 6.


----------



## ShadowPrince

Controversial opinion: nobody here knows what a Sexual Five / 5w4 looks like (or even Fives in general, but lets stick with Sexual Five at the moment).
This one is also for @Animal

Here is a video of a real Sexual Five / 5w4:






Now before anyone says this guy is not an sx 5, that he is a 6, or 9, or sp, or something else... let's have a look at Russ Hudson, who self-types as Sexual 5w4 / 548 and tell me you cannot see the similarity:
















Fess up, if you didn't know who Russ Hudson was or that he self-typed as sx5w4/548 you would not have typed him as a Sexual Five. Most would probably type him as phobic 6, 9w1, or even 2 before they'd consider 5w4. And even if you picked 5w4 as your first choice, no way would you type him as both Sexual AND 8-fixed at the same time! All this bullshit about dark intense eyes a la Patti Smith is nonsense. That's not SX 5. SX 5's are much more 9ish in the flesh.


----------



## Chesire Tower

ShadowPrince said:


> That's not SX 5. SX 5's are much more 9ish in the flesh.


Interesting that you say that because I tend to talk like that and am always reading and thinking about things; always trying to understand and figure out something or other. My mind never shuts off; I get so entranced by whatever thought comes into my head; that I become absolutely obsessed with seeing it through. I have had plenty of convos with extremely intellectually curious nines and it's different with them. For then, it's more like I read this and found it interesting and then on to the next topic of interest. For me, I don't lose interest until I've completely intellectually dissected the topic from multiple angels and fully understand it at it's core. Like Hudson, I am intense whenever I'm discussing something of great interest to me. I've even have dates be freaked out by my "intensity" whenever I would talk about anything that really interested me.

I think you're typing of Hudson is spot on. I saw a thread that typed him as an SO/SX 5w4 but he is far too warm and intense to be an SO first IMO.


----------



## Animal

@ShadowPrince
Would you claim that Trent Reznor is not a 5w4?


----------



## Lord Bullingdon

I have several controversial enneagram opinions based on others' ideas. (Not picking on anyone here. Just stereotypes I once had too.)

One,


Dark and Derisive said:


> In fact, ironically enough, 7s' means of escaping from reality is actually _indulging_ in it, and a glance at Hitler's life is enough to see that he was indeed NOT very indulgent of the world. Contrast to someone like Stalin, an 8w7 so/sp, whose 7 wing gave him a gusto for drinking, dancing, sex and poetry. Different types may want to escape reality for different reasons. Hitler's method of escaping reality was by holding himself to, what he perceived to be, high moral standards, which further indicates a 1 fix.


*Type 7 isn't necessarily all about dancing, drinking, sex, and other sensual pleasures.* Many 7s are more tooled to mental pleasures like music, philosophy, learning, planning adventures, and other intellectual / imaginative pleasures. Chestnut, as much as I dislike the way her 27 archetypes get used, actually does peg SX 7s as being "ethereal". Many factors will go into the ways a 7 seeks pleasure and escape.

Two,
*Likewise, abstaining from earthly pleasures doesn't make you a 1, nor does it preclude you from being an 8.* It may simply mean you have other interests, and you indulge in _those_ quite frequently. Jesus, everyone seems to think _I_ have "high moral standards" when I simply suck at getting into situations that society would think are remotely pleasurable. Being told I have "high moral standards" offends me. I can't say I know what went on in the mind of Hitler, but it's an example of why motivation counts.

Three,


FakeLefty said:


> Huh, I thought that Stalin was an unhealthy 6w5. He seemed to see danger in anything and everyone around him, never trusting even his closest allies- during the Stalin era one surefire way to get yourself killed was to be Stalin's "friend."


*6s aren't the only type that can get paranoid. * 5s can. 4s can. 8s certainly can as well, and yes, friends look like enemies in that state. It's one more way to be antisocial.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon

ShadowPrince said:


> Fess up, if you didn't know who Russ Hudson was or that he self-typed as sx5w4/548 you would not have typed him as a Sexual Five. Most would probably type him as phobic 6, 9w1, or even 2 before they'd consider 5w4.


Ha ha. I remember the first time I saw Russ years ago, I was like, Is he a 2? He just seemed so...nice and giving.

I accept his typing though.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

@Entropic 
we left off on the subject of 8s being over-glorified, and I'm in the mood to address a few such glorified traits at the moment
1) *Strategy:* people love to think of Sun Tzu, Oda Nobunaga and Genghis Khan when they think of strategists, but by and large, 5s, 6w5s and 3s are more strategic (I underlined 3s because they are usually smart as fuck, _far_ more than they are given credit for. under the charming, inconspicuous surface, everything they do is so damn calculated and perfectly placed in this complicated social dance to make the best impression on all possible parties**). the most strategic 8 is Sp 8, but the other 8s don't usually develop an apt sense of strategy until they have a lot more experience. that's not to say that 8s are stupid, but Sx and So 8s tend to be a little more in-the-moment, less patient, more reliant on tactics (it might please you to know that this is one of the few things I disagree with Naranjo on, because he views Social 8 as the "intellectual 8". I view it as more "big brother", "mama bear", Santa Claus-y, etc). basically, war strategy is a struggle between self-preservation and sadism/"destroy thine enemy!". 8s are very good at the second part, but not generally as good at the first part in the midst of fight (naturally, Sp 8 is a more careful 8 and likely to be better about this, hence them being the most strategic). 5s and 3s both have, on average, more patience than 8, more restraint and an ability to execute more subtly (assuming the 5 has enough of a line to 8 to leave their basement lmao). 
2) *Villain:* honestly, I've been a little guilty of this one myself, but I'm increasingly realizing this is more of a certain type of 8 than 8 in general (NTJ 8 Sp/Sx specifically is sinister as hell). in my opinion, Sexual 2 and Sexual 4 are, on average, much more "evil" than 8***. Sexual 4's theme according to Ichazo is "Hate" (a la Cersei Lannister lol) and Sexual 2 actively uses their sexuality to woo and control people for the sake of acquires privileges and resources (your archetypal "Cunning Little Vixen" is for sure a Sexual 2). in fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to call Sexual 4 the most angry and vindictive type and Sexual 2 the most actively manipulative. 8s are usually the ones thinking to themselves "ok...why do you care so much?", because they generally aren't focused enough on people to want revenge without being seriously transgressed upon. obviously, this doesn't mean they are incapable of thinking about people and/or social issues (a good friend of mine is an 8w7 Sp/Sx who got a degree in social justice), just that they need and impetus to do so. 8 borrows from 9's drive for physical harmony and 7's drive for freedom and tend to view such endeavors as more of a sacrifice than they are worth. 
3) *Grandiosity:* some 8s are grandiose, but this is generally thanks to a combination of a strong Sexual instinct and a reasonably strong 7 wing. Sexual 8w7 is a _very_ grandiose type (Rasputin, Donald Trump, Oberyn Martel and Charles Manson come to mind) but the other 8s....not so much. they tend to be more down to earth/gut center in the most traditional sense and will probably find such behavior a little bit funny. 


**I don't mean to suggest that all 3s are Machiavellian sociopaths like Light Yagami or Frank Underwood (in fact, that's a stereotype I've been fighting for a long ass time), but what I'm saying also applies to the more common "nice" 3s. 

***this goes without saying that there are good/evil people of every type (since I know someone will bring that up...)


----------



## Entropic

@Swordsman of Mana I'm going to be very busy the coming days unless it will persist to rain every day which is then ahsgs but I will respond later.

I agree with you about 3s though, especially 3w2. I also want to mention that when authors mention the strategy of 8 it's more how they draw energy from point 5 when faced with a particularly difficult problem where simply going in head's first doesn't work. 8s are direct but not necessarily dumb and will research a problem if they think it will lead to better results.


----------



## FakeLefty

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_Entropic_
> we left off on the subject of 8s being over-glorified, and I'm in the mood to address a few such glorified traits at the moment
> 1) *Strategy:* people love to think of Sun Tzu, Oda Nobunaga and Genghis Khan when they think of strategists, but by and large, 5s, 6w5s and 3s are more strategic (I underlined 3s because they are usually smart as fuck, _far_ more than they are given credit for. under the charming, inconspicuous surface, everything they do is so damn calculated and perfectly placed in this complicated social dance to make the best impression on all possible parties**). the most strategic 8 is Sp 8, but the other 8s don't usually develop an apt sense of strategy until they have a lot more experience. that's not to say that 8s are stupid, but Sx and So 8s tend to be a little more in-the-moment, less patient, more reliant on tactics (it might please you to know that this is one of the few things I disagree with Naranjo on, because he views Social 8 as the "intellectual 8". I view it as more "big brother", "mama bear", Santa Claus-y, etc). basically, war strategy is a struggle between self-preservation and sadism/"destroy thine enemy!". 8s are very good at the second part, but not generally as good at the first part in the midst of fight (naturally, Sp 8 is a more careful 8 and likely to be better about this, hence them being the most strategic). 5s and 3s both have, on average, more patience than 8, more restraint and an ability to execute more subtly (assuming the 5 has enough of a line to 8 to leave their basement lmao).
> 2) *Villain:* honestly, I've been a little guilty of this one myself, but I'm increasingly realizing this is more of a certain type of 8 than 8 in general (NTJ 8 Sp/Sx specifically is sinister as hell). in my opinion, Sexual 2 and Sexual 4 are, on average, much more "evil" than 8***. Sexual 4's theme according to Ichazo is "Hate" (a la Cersei Lannister lol) and Sexual 2 actively uses their sexuality to woo and control people for the sake of acquires privileges and resources (your archetypal "Cunning Little Vixen" is for sure a Sexual 2). in fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to call Sexual 4 the most angry and vindictive type and Sexual 2 the most actively manipulative. 8s are usually the ones thinking to themselves "ok...why do you care so much?", because they generally aren't focused enough on people to want revenge without being seriously transgressed upon. obviously, this doesn't mean they are incapable of thinking about people and/or social issues (a good friend of mine is an 8w7 Sp/Sx who got a degree in social justice), just that they need and impetus to do so. 8 borrows from 9's drive for physical harmony and 7's drive for freedom and tend to view such endeavors as more of a sacrifice than they are worth.
> 3) *Grandiosity:* some 8s are grandiose, but this is generally thanks to a combination of a strong Sexual instinct and a reasonably strong 7 wing. Sexual 8w7 is a _very_ grandiose type (Rasputin, Donald Trump, Oberyn Martel and Charles Manson come to mind) but the other 8s....not so much. they tend to be more down to earth/gut center in the most traditional sense and will probably find such behavior a little bit funny.
> 
> 
> **I don't mean to suggest that all 3s are Machiavellian sociopaths like Light Yagami or Frank Underwood (in fact, that's a stereotype I've been fighting for a long ass time), but what I'm saying also applies to the more common "nice" 3s.
> 
> ***this goes without saying that there are good/evil people of every type (since I know someone will bring that up...)


Huh. I don't consider myself to be particularly smooth when it comes to dealing with people. I think I'm more awkward than that.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

8s can also be capable of self-doubt, anxiety and indecision, especially when stressed or humiliated...because that is a facet of _human nature_. The anxiety part is more true when the 8 is an sp-dom (or any sp-dom for that matter).

8s are also too over-idealized. (I didn't type as an 8 out of glorification. It was through research and analysis). 

8s are not _all_ athletic and their desire to be strong can come off in focusing more so on emotional and mental strength than the physical. 

Not all 8s view the world in terms of black and white. Some do *ahemDonaldTrump*, but not all of them do. Granted, there are times when making an impactful decision that I'll have a clear dichotomy between two choices, but when it comes to say, political views, I'm able to see and incorporate shades of gray in my opinions, especially on matters of the economy. 

You don't need to have the social instinct as their predominant or secondary one to be aware of social dynamics.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Entropic said:


> @Swordsman of Mana I'm going to be very busy the coming days unless it will persist to rain every day which is then ahsgs but I will respond later.
> 
> I agree with you about 3s though, especially 3w2. I also want to mention that when authors mention the strategy of 8 it's more how they draw energy from point 5 when faced with a particularly difficult problem where simply going in head's first doesn't work. 8s are direct but not necessarily dumb and will research a problem if they think it will lead to better results.


no disagreement there (only that different 8s will make the decision to do so sooner/later based on subtype, MBTI, maturity and possibly tritype)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Dark and Derisive said:


> 8s can also be capable of self-doubt and indecision, especially when stressed or humiliated...because that is a facet of _human nature_.


true, but they're very good at hiding it, especially from themselves. (it's also a facet of being a teenager specifically. teenagers have most of the capabilities of reason that an adult has, but they also lack the context and experience to know what to do and are still getting used to more adult emotions). the difference is in how it shows (it will be more noticeable in 6s and 4s than, say, 8s and 5s). most gut types have some degree of an unresponsive "don't let them see you sweat" response to feeling vulnerable to something.



> 8s are also too over-idealized. (I didn't type as an 8 out of glorification. It was through research and analysis).


not terribly controversial, but I agree (it's also not a terrible typing for you btw, though I still see more 5)



> 8s are not _all_ athletic and their desire to be strong can come off in focusing more so on emotional and mental strength than the physical.


there is going to be _some_ focus on physical strength (you will never see an 8 going around like Mark Zuckerburg), but it can also be directed toward other sources. emotional "strength" is actually the primary psychological concern for 8s, so I agree there. but yeah, 8s can definitely be pretty damn lazy lol (they're surrounded by 9s with the vice of sloth and 7s who can also be pretty lazy)



> One does not need to have the social instinct as their predominant or secondary one to be aware of social dynamics.


agreed, it's just that some types, such as Social last 7s and 8s (and 5s of all subtypes lmao!) find thinking about them annoying and generally need to feel a compelling reason to do so.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist

Swordsman of Mana said:


> true, but they're very good at hiding it, especially from themselves. (*it's also a facet of being a teenager specifically. teenagers have most of the capabilities of reason that an adult has, but they also lack the context and experience to know what to do and are still getting used to more adult emotions*). the difference is in how it shows (it will be more noticeable in 6s and 4s than, say, 8s and 5s). most gut types have some degree of an unresponsive "don't let them see you sweat" response to feeling vulnerable to something.


Can't really contest that. Especially the bolded part lol. 



> not terribly controversial, but I agree (it's also not a terrible typing for you btw, though I still see more 5)


8 with strong connection to 5 or vice versa are my two strongest possibilities, both equally likely (which is VERY much). I'm pretty confident that I have sp 8w9 as my gut fix and sp 5w6 as my head fix. 



> agreed, it's just that some types, such as Social last 7s and 8s (and 5s of all subtypes lmao!) find thinking about them annoying and generally need to feel a compelling reason to do so.


In contrast to social last 3s, for example, like Littlefinger, a 3w4 sp/sx (yes, we have argued this point before and you can PM me about this if you want...). Even though it seems that his main desire is more material security rather than a genuine interest in social standing, he figures that the only way that such will be possible is if he maintains a reputation/image of success, which is the core desire of and why I see him as, a 3.


----------



## DomC

I never really liked enneagram typing....alway got 4w5....it never made sense to me, i couldn't see myself in the descriptions i found
But then i learned that my tritype is the "unlikely" 458. The descriptions started to make sense for me.

Same thing with MBTI....Always got INFJ....descriptions i read only partly fit.

But when I combine INFJ with 458 trytipe.....the puzzle starts to make sense for me

And INFJ plus 458 = feeling very bad...tortured...no peace of mind....tiresome...mentally sharp, mentally drained.....crusading....and many more...unfortunately i can't find anything positive to say about those combinations. 

I wish i was somebody else


----------



## Entropic

Ok, finally got some time to get back to this:



Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Entropic
> we left off on the subject of 8s being over-glorified, and I'm in the mood to address a few such glorified traits at the moment
> 1) *Strategy:* people love to think of Sun Tzu, Oda Nobunaga and Genghis Khan when they think of strategists, but by and large, 5s, 6w5s and 3s are more strategic (I underlined 3s because they are usually smart as fuck, _far_ more than they are given credit for. under the charming, inconspicuous surface, everything they do is so damn calculated and perfectly placed in this complicated social dance to make the best impression on all possible parties**). the most strategic 8 is Sp 8, but the other 8s don't usually develop an apt sense of strategy until they have a lot more experience. that's not to say that 8s are stupid, but Sx and So 8s tend to be a little more in-the-moment, less patient, more reliant on tactics (it might please you to know that this is one of the few things I disagree with Naranjo on, because he views Social 8 as the "intellectual 8". I view it as more "big brother", "mama bear", Santa Claus-y, etc). basically, war strategy is a struggle between self-preservation and sadism/"destroy thine enemy!". 8s are very good at the second part, but not generally as good at the first part in the midst of fight (naturally, Sp 8 is a more careful 8 and likely to be better about this, hence them being the most strategic). 5s and 3s both have, on average, more patience than 8, more restraint and an ability to execute more subtly (assuming the 5 has enough of a line to 8 to leave their basement lmao).


Hm, I never associated 8 with strategy in the same way you do here. My impression when people bring up famous people such as Oda Nobunaga, Sun Tzu (I am not even sure the guy's an 8 but he seems more like a 5 the same way he idealizes the way of the 8 just like Nietzsche did) and Genghis Khan seems to be more because they were very ferocious and aggressive leaders of their kind, or in the very least, promoted a very ruthless logic of how to divide and conquer the enemy. 

I mean, 8s are a little too head's first in order to be truly good strategists. In such a way, 8s are very simple people, arguably perhaps one of the simplest in the enneagram perhaps along with type 9. There is very little thought spent on overall methodology as much as 8s are focused on acquiring their goals. Exactly how they get there is less of a concern to them as long as they do get there and the means often justify the methods. It's not just because they are a reactive type, but they act a lot on their immediate gut reaction which is a form of reactivity, granted, but the point isn't the reaction but rather the lack of personal reflection over these reactions. Hence some authors write that 8s when healthy, benefit a lot of taking on the more thoughtful qualities of type 5 and think ahead a little more over what they do before they do them. 

As for Naranjo, I think a big problem with Naranjo in general is that he uses a lot of terminology with certain colloquial implications but he may not necessarily mean that this is what the words actually mean in this particular context in which they were expressed. Yes, you are correct he a) views 8 as the most anti-intellectual type in general with type 2, and b) considers the social subtype of 8 the most intellectual 8, but at least in enneagram lingo, intellectualism isn't so much an interest in intellectual endeavors as much as it is a matter of ability to self-reflect and introspect. From this perspective, I also think Naranjo's statement makes a little bit more sense because the social 8 cares a lot for their social connections and how they stand in relation to other people, which means that they have to be a bit more naturally mindful of how they come across to those who they deem to be within their inner sphere of influence as to avoid unnecessarily burning too many bridges due to reactivity. Hence social 8 is also in that sense, the counter-type, because they would be the least openly reactive out of the subtypes, and sx 8 would be the "worst" in terms of reactivity because how sx always propels towards seeking intensity and intense interactions with that of others. I guess it's a little like how sex after or during a fight is the most hot kind of sex, due to its extreme level of passion which is to say, all 8s obviously possess that quality to one degree or another, but they will emphasize it more or less depending on their instinctual variant, just like how sp 8 is going to be the most 5-like because sp makes the 8 more naturally self-contained and hoarding of themselves and their possessions. One could perhaps argue that sp strengthens the connection to 5 that 8 has in a way it does not in the other subtypes. 



> 2) *Villain:* honestly, I've been a little guilty of this one myself, but I'm increasingly realizing this is more of a certain type of 8 than 8 in general (NTJ 8 Sp/Sx specifically is sinister as hell). in my opinion, Sexual 2 and Sexual 4 are, on average, much more "evil" than 8***. Sexual 4's theme according to Ichazo is "Hate" (a la Cersei Lannister lol) and Sexual 2 actively uses their sexuality to woo and control people for the sake of acquires privileges and resources (your archetypal "Cunning Little Vixen" is for sure a Sexual 2). in fact, it wouldn't be a stretch to call Sexual 4 the most angry and vindictive type and Sexual 2 the most actively manipulative. 8s are usually the ones thinking to themselves "ok...why do you care so much?", because they generally aren't focused enough on people to want revenge without being seriously transgressed upon. obviously, this doesn't mean they are incapable of thinking about people and/or social issues (a good friend of mine is an 8w7 Sp/Sx who got a degree in social justice), just that they need and impetus to do so. 8 borrows from 9's drive for physical harmony and 7's drive for freedom and tend to view such endeavors as more of a sacrifice than they are worth.


I don't have a real opinion on this because I find that character tropes are just that, tropes. They often fall within very specific archetypal realms so the villain mastermind is for example very often an ENTJ, ENFJ or less commonly, INFJ or INTJ. The only thing they got in common here is that Ni, though I'd argue that the mastermind villain with a backup plan with a backup plan with a backup plan is more likely to be ENxJ because they are the ones more likely to seek such backup plans. Ni doms tend to care more for their visions than their plans, so to say. They most commonly tend to be motivated by image-concerns though, in the case of the mastermind, but then there are other kinds of tropes obviously and I am too disinterested in the subject to make more nuanced statements than that .

With that said, I often find that 8s are more likely to play the role of anti-heroes than they are villains or heroes. There is a moral grey or ambiguity to 8, largely because they, as you note, don't care so much for the perceptions of others or how they stand in relation to others and 8s often do seek to be good or experience themselves to be useful or helpful to that of others, even if they also equally tend to take a standoffish relationship to the group or society at large. I don't agree with either timeless nor Riso & Hudson here, citing that 8s often want to overtly stand at the top. Perhaps if a strong 7 wing, but as a whole, I don't think 8s genuinely care enough for such group hierarchies in the first place to either be in or out, but their predisposed antisocial tendencies of seeking complete self-sufficiency including their reactive aggressive tendencies and propensity towards conflict and how this may alienate themselves from people tend to often place them in a situation where they are in a sense, outsiders, anyway. Then again, my perception may be biased because my 9 wing makes me more inclined to not seek to be in the center of the attention in such a way in the first place as I can be needlessly self-deprecating in this regard, but /shrug.



> 3) *Grandiosity:* some 8s are grandiose, but this is generally thanks to a combination of a strong Sexual instinct and a reasonably strong 7 wing. Sexual 8w7 is a _very_ grandiose type (Rasputin, Donald Trump, Oberyn Martel and Charles Manson come to mind) but the other 8s....not so much. they tend to be more down to earth/gut center in the most traditional sense and will probably find such behavior a little bit funny.


So you essentially admit it's not so much the 8 that makes them grandiose, but sx and/or the 7 wing? I guess I can agree with that, because I don't think there is something inherent about 8 in itself that would make the 8 seek a disposition of grandiosity. It would require a specific attitude of seeing oneself as greater or better than that of others which in my opinion, isn't really much of a concern for type 8 because as a whole, again they don't care, and in the case of a 9 wing, may even seek the opposite attitude of needlessly downplaying themselves and their own value and relevance. 



> **I don't mean to suggest that all 3s are Machiavellian sociopaths like Light Yagami or Frank Underwood (in fact, that's a stereotype I've been fighting for a long ass time), but what I'm saying also applies to the more common "nice" 3s.


See my comment on the mastermind villain trope. I am not sure I think this necessarily is type 3 related in itself, as much as it just is a trope that perhaps better correlates with 3 and NJ types because there is a stereotype perception of them as such, regardless of how accurate this is when it comes to categorizing actual people. 



> ***this goes without saying that there are good/evil people of every type (since I know someone will bring that up...)


Yeah, no, I understand you don't mean in it that way but more how each type when aligned towards a certain moral attitude will emphasize such alignment differently. The self-hate of 4 can for example take on the expression of "hate" as you mention with Ichazo's name for sx 4, because at some level when you hate yourself to such a degree, you ought to project it at the environment because no person will be able to meaningfully experience such strong feelings to begin with towards themselves, at least not for any extended period of time. Also with sx being a very polarizing element in a person's personality, will propel such a feeling into a more exaggerated extreme because sx always seeks intensity and intense connectivity to the environment.


----------



## galactic collision

Sixes are known to experience "existential anxiety," but I would posit that every type experiences some kind of feeling on an existential level. I'm wondering what those feelings would be, if we had to articulate it into one word?

For me, as a 7, I would say that mine might be "existential frustration" that I am constantly combating. 

I don't know. I would start a new topic but I don't know how to do that on mobile and it's almost 2am and I can't sleep so I came here


----------



## mariahj

@just for the spark - you should start a new topic! this could make it easier to type people based on the source of their style rather than the symptoms. it could also help with defining countertype. cp 6s reject their anxiety... do any 7s reject their frustration?

for 4s, i would think it would be existential alienation, or existential self-consciousness. existential frustration with the self?


----------



## Entropic

mariahj said:


> @just for the spark - you should start a new topic! this could make it easier to type people based on the source of their style rather than the symptoms. it could also help with defining countertype. cp 6s reject their anxiety... do any 7s reject their frustration?
> 
> for 4s, i would think it would be existential alienation, or existential self-consciousness. existential frustration with the self?


It's based on the centers of intelligence:

Gut: concerns about being, sense of existence eg my existence should be recognized 
Heart: value, meaning eg people should value my existence, that I'm important 
Head: knowing eg I need to know how I exist


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Entropic said:


> It's based on the centers of intelligence:
> 
> Gut: concerns about being, sense of existence eg my existence should be recognized
> Heart: value, meaning eg people should value my existence, that I'm important
> Head: knowing eg I need to know how I exist


I would put it more like
*gut:* concerns about physical space/"territory" and control 
*heart:* concerns about intimacy 
*head:* concerns about safety and certainty (seeking "knowing" is the resulting tendency, but the root cause 

the heart center is kind of the odd man out (and probably the most recent development on an anthropological level) because it is the only center not primarily preoccupied with survival.


----------



## Entropic

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I would put it more like
> *gut:* concerns about physical space/"territory" and control
> *heart:* concerns about intimacy
> *head:* concerns about safety and certainty (seeking "knowing" is the resulting tendency, but the root cause
> 
> the heart center is kind of the odd man out (and probably the most recent development on an anthropological level) because it is the only center not primarily preoccupied with survival.


Well, I would say what you are looking at seem to be more like the results. I was looking at existential drives more, what concerns you the most existentially. Physical space/territory for gut types is a part of seeking one's existence/being to be recognized. I exist so therefore I have the right to take up space and I want others to recognize this space that I take up and need to take up. Anger comes from feeling how this space is being invalidated and there's a desire to reinstate or reinforce its boundaries.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Entropic said:


> Well, I would say what you are looking at seem to be more like the results. I was looking at existential drives more, what concerns you the most existentially. Physical space/territory for gut types is a part of seeking one's existence/being to be recognized. I exist so therefore I have the right to take up space and I want others to recognize this space that I take up and need to take up. Anger comes from feeling how this space is being invalidated and there's a desire to reinstate or reinforce its boundaries.


the difference between our posts is not that yours is more existential, but that it is more spirituality centric while mine is more instinct-centric


----------



## Entropic

Swordsman of Mana said:


> the difference between our posts is not that yours is more existential, but that it is more spirituality centric while mine is more instinct-centric


Yes, and my original post was in response to a question of how the other types are existentially motivated.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Entropic said:


> Yes, and my original post was in response to a question of how the other types are existentially motivated.


indeed, and, while you didn't do a bad job, I disagree with you on what the most existential level of type is. more specifically, the types are ego structures, so a more spirituality-centric description like you just gave would be appropriate, but imo; however, _centers_ are physiological, so I prefer to look at them through a more evolutionary biology-centric lens (hope this isn't too semantic. I feel it's an important distinction which makes understanding both a lot easier).


----------



## Entropic

Swordsman of Mana said:


> indeed, and, while you didn't do a bad job, I disagree with you on what the most existential level of type is. more specifically, the types are ego structures, so a more spirituality-centric description like you just gave would be appropriate, but imo; however, _centers_ are physiological, so I prefer to look at them through a more evolutionary biology-centric lens (hope this isn't too semantic. I feel it's an important distinction which makes understanding both a lot easier).


I don't understand how your view is more existential, though? Existential concerns would imply something pertaining to the existentialist school in philosophy, which is the metaphysical state of what it means to be a person. You could call it "spiritual" since much of spirituality is also metaphysical, but a biological approach doesn't strike me as an existentialist approach.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Entropic said:


> I don't understand how your view is more existential, though? Existential concerns would imply something pertaining to the existentialist school in philosophy, which is the metaphysical state of what it means to be a person. You could call it "spiritual" since much of spirituality is also metaphysical, but a biological approach doesn't strike me as an existentialist approach.


as I suspected, different definitions. I take existential to simply mean "what is", and the most fundamental components of "what is" are biology and physics (though I don't discount the relevance of metaphysics, rather I view it as objective, just not fully understood, rather than spiritual). 

your definition is also legitimate though, so I think we've reached a reasonable level of agreement.


----------



## Slagasauras

Please elaborate on how the five is strategic.


----------



## Daeva

Fern said:


> I feel like the one type that scares you and humiliates you to even associating yourself with - that's your type.
> 
> Because it hits too close to home. It *is *home.


I've always been skeptical of that, even if it makes sense theoretically... until I actually found my type.
As it turns out, the types I always 'hated' to be are my dominant type and my disintegration type :| 9 and 6...
Other types that I dislike(d), like type 1, never gave me the same visceral experience that 9 and 6 do, I just didn't like them because I never could understand their mindset. I was just disliking what was foreign to me. But it never felt as 'deep'.
9 and 6 on the other hand, holy crap!.. Especially type 9, brrr... I remember the first time I encountered the enneagram, one of my first reactions was "I'm either 4 or 7, but no way in HELL am I a 9.. (even if I can identify those traits et all in myself :grey::frown-new."

So even though I won't be claiming this is a a fire-proof way of finding one's type, I still have to say.. it applies to me :sad:


----------



## Mr inappropriate

> Vollmar suggests that the stress type expresses the Shadow of the type. He also suggests that one is especially baffled by the Stress Point of one's own Stress Point


There is the quote ^ roud:

I think the type people are most likely to hate/feel shame being associated with is the type they've been influenced negatively while growing up. E.g. --> The child of an unhealthy 1 dad, would probably hate the idea of being type 1 most.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

crashbandicoot said:


> There is the quote ^ roud:


Hmm, that still doesn't seem to explain much.



> I think the type people are most likely to hate/feel shame being associated with is the type they've been influenced negatively while growing up. E.g. --> The child of an unhealthy 1 dad, would probably hate the idea of being type 1 most.


Well if it inspires shame it's probably because it did influence who you are to some degree. So not necessarily your core type, but can't see why you'd feel shame over something you don't relate to.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Distortions said:


> Hmm, that still doesn't seem to explain much.
> 
> 
> Well if it inspires shame it's probably because it did influence who you are to some degree. So not necessarily your core type, but can't see why you'd feel shame over something you don't relate to.


It wasnt an explaination. You should check that vollmar dude out if you are interested in why. Personally, i wasnt.

Mind is weird, it can play games on you. You may feel shamed even if you arent that type. Its like even the thought of it can trigger such feelings --> "How can I be like that?"


----------



## d e c a d e n t

crashbandicoot said:


> It wasnt an explaination. You should check that vollmar dude out if you are interested in why. Personally, i wasnt.


Like I said, it sounds rather arbitrary so I was wondering if there's actually any reasoning/logic behind it, especially after you said Fern's opinion was "not logical" since that at least had some reasoning behind it, but whatever.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Distortions said:


> Like I said, it sounds rather arbitrary so I was wondering if there's actually any reasoning/logic behind it, especially after you said Fern's opinion was "not logical" since that at least had some reasoning behind it, but whatever.


What ? I'm not your teacher, its that vollmar guy's theory. I'm not interested in why he proposed that and the logic behind it. I also didnt say I agreed. It sounded like what @Fern said.

But whatever lol *agressiveness-offence taken* anyway lol whatever.


----------



## Darkbloom

Lol @crashbandicoot, so, my "give me attention" threads are what causes you to act retarded?
Thank you for proving my point)


----------



## Fern

Spirit Animal said:


> I've always been skeptical of that, even if it makes sense theoretically... until I actually found my type.
> As it turns out, the types I always 'hated' to be are my dominant type and my disintegration type :| 9 and 6...
> Other types that I dislike(d), like type 1, never gave me the same visceral experience that 9 and 6 do, I just didn't like them because I never could understand their mindset. I was just disliking what was foreign to me. But it never felt as 'deep'.
> 9 and 6 on the other hand, holy crap!.. Especially type 9, brrr... I remember the first time I encountered the enneagram, one of my first reactions was "I'm either 4 or 7, but no way in HELL am I a 9.. (even if I can identify those traits et all in myself :grey::frown-new."
> 
> So even though I won't be claiming this is a a fire-proof way of finding one's type, I still have to say.. it applies to me :sad:


Haha, dang, people got really heated about what I said earlier! I log in this afternoon and I have 20+ notifications.

Okay, so I do realize that my original comment...



> _I feel like the one type that scares you and humiliates you to even associating yourself with - that's your type.
> 
> _
> _Because it hits too close to home. It _*is home.*


...Probably came across as overly broad. Because it was.

It was far more of a rambling, neigh a TWEET practically, rather than a cohesive argument. I was thinking of fleshing it out but I thought "Eh, nobody cares what I think. It will probably go unread" So I hit "Post quick reply" and called it a night.

Yes, things can bother us for different reasons. No, hating black people doesn't make you black; but having a profound, abnormal hatred liars means you have some intrinsic disposition for falsehood (be it repressed or expressed) or you have perhaps had some unpleasant run-ins with them. Or a third reason. There are lots of reasons to experience strong reactions to things.


Soooo, a reframed version of my initial post here would be that it's wise to take note of which type descirptions rub you the wrong way, which strike an uncomfortable cord, which you feel no connection to whatsoever.

Because I think that reaction or opinion says a lot more about you than about that particular personality set.


Carl Jung said everything that irritates us about others can lead to a deeper understanding of ourselves.
And the reasons, context and particular flavor of this specific irritation I was talking about might point to what is Your Self.


----------



## Blindspots

A lot of things bug me about the way enneagram types are described and evaluated, especially outside the literature and in informal settings.



I'll be using my experience in self-typing as 1 as an example:

In most 1 descriptions, I relate with their explanations of how 1s relate with resentment, their vice; that's the strongest reason I bother to type as such. The consequences of that resentment in their descriptions, I find mostly plausible. In order to deal with frustration towards how the world at large works, it's likely that 1s will strive towards consistency to the point of becoming obsessive-compulsive, may perceive things as black-and-white, may crave for order, etc. Some apply to me to a certain extent, some don't. I disregard those that say that I'll most likely subscribe to so-and-so ideology; they're probabilities, not absolutes.

The tendency of most in attempting to learn the types is to take buzzwords at face value, fall back on stereotypes, make hasty generalizations and not even attempt to look at the probable causes and reasoning behind an individual's behavior. Even if logical fallacies wouldn't bother you as much as they do to me, this treatment of types can also be seen as unfair and uncompassionate.

This example is extreme and might be controversial in itself, but this is how I imagine typing gone wrong:

"That uber-strict teacher who yelled at me in grade school? Seems to want others to follow her rules, no matter how unreasonable and trivial they are. She seems to fit the 1 description, so she must be a 1. The 1 descriptions say OC is likely, so I bet she irons her underwear at 7:00 pm sharp every single night. Somehow, 1 is in the anger triad, and I imagine she slaps people who slouch. Other 1s are most likely unbearable and judgmental like her. I don't like her, so I'm not like her, and it follows that I'm better than her, and I'm definitely not a 1."



The system itself approaches each type as having its own peculiar weaknesses and strengths, never stating that a type is inherently better than the other, and all have chances at enlightenment. It's when the enneagram gets set in the context of our current culture that the types get colored differently.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana

Thymic said:


> A lot of things bug me about the way enneagram types are described and evaluated, especially outside the literature and in informal settings.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be using my experience in self-typing as 1 as an example:
> 
> In most 1 descriptions, I relate with their explanations of how 1s relate with resentment, their vice; that's the strongest reason I bother to type as such. The consequences of that resentment in their descriptions, I find mostly plausible. In order to deal with frustration towards how the world at large works, it's likely that 1s will strive towards consistency to the point of becoming obsessive-compulsive, may perceive things as black-and-white, may crave for order, etc. Some apply to me to a certain extent, some don't. I disregard those that say that I'll most likely subscribe to so-and-so ideology; they're probabilities, not absolutes.
> 
> The tendency of most in attempting to learn the types is to take buzzwords at face value, fall back on stereotypes, make hasty generalizations and not even attempt to look at the probable causes and reasoning behind an individual's behavior. Even if logical fallacies wouldn't bother you as much as they do to me, this treatment of types can also be seen as unfair and uncompassionate.
> 
> This example is extreme and might be controversial in itself, but this is how I imagine typing gone wrong:
> 
> "That uber-strict teacher who yelled at me in grade school? Seems to want others to follow her rules, no matter how unreasonable and trivial they are. She seems to fit the 1 description, so she must be a 1. The 1 descriptions say OC is likely, so I bet she irons her underwear at 7:00 pm sharp every single night. Somehow, 1 is in the anger triad, and I imagine she slaps people who slouch. Other 1s are most likely unbearable and judgmental like her. I don't like her, so I'm not like her, and it follows that I'm better than her, and I'm definitely not a 1."
> 
> 
> 
> The system itself approaches each type as having its own peculiar weaknesses and strengths, never stating that a type is inherently better than the other, and all have chances at enlightenment. It's when the enneagram gets set in the context of our current culture that the types get colored differently.


have you looked into subtypes? these sound more like Sx-last 1s specifically


----------



## Blindspots

Swordsman of Mana said:


> have you looked into subtypes? these sound more like Sx-last 1s specifically


I have, including your post at the 1 subforum ^^

Yes, it does seem like sx-last 1s would tend to be very conservative in the typical sense of that word. But because of factors outside core type and instinctual subtypes, I still would like to think it's a tendency and not an absolute which is readily applicable to every individual who happens to have an sx-blindspot.



What I wanted to point out in that post was that the reasoning behind the typing of that uber-strict teacher, for example, tends to take too many shortcuts and rely on too many assumptions. It usually involves classifying disjoint pieces of information according to stereotypes, over generalizations and other subjective interpretations of enneagram types. 

Instead, I'd like to suggest to use that information to build a more comprehensive picture of the individual, and figure out the driving forces that make up this individual. The approach I'm suggesting seems to place less emphasis on enneagram as a typology system, yes, but works better if one would like to use enneagram for self-reflection and personal development.


----------



## Xyte

4's seem very emo to me.


----------



## Flaming Bassoon

Xyte said:


> 4's seem very emo to me.


Well, social 4w5s fit the "emo" stereotype the best, but an sx 4 probably isn't going to wallow in self-pity.


----------



## Figure

I have a controversial opinion that's developed over the last couple months. 


I think a lot of people on this forum type themselves and others in a way that has little or nothing to do with the actual enneagram. And while a lot of said people would quite loudly say that they hate enneagram stereotypes and think typing by type descriptions, but really that's exactly what they do, I suppose without realizing it. 

As an example, we may say that "4's aren't necessarily that artistic," and that "the type descriptions overemphasize that quality - not all 4's are artists." Then, we proceed to say "4's are really more vindictive and hateful," as if saying they are artistic is too reductionist, and saying they are hateful is NOT reductionist. I see both of those as being next to worthless in describing a type. All this clarification has done is more narrowly define a stereotype of a type. It hasn't replaced an existing stereotype with a real description of what the type goes through, it's replaced a stereotype with a more specific stereotype. 

The same thing applies to typing self and others, questionnaires, and additionally to the endless typing of actors, actresses, musicians, politicians, and artists. I think Bob Marley was a 3 because he is concerned with his image; Bernie Sanders is too soft to be a 1, but too assertive to be a 9; Swedish culture is 4-ish because it values uniqueness; CP 6's are just as belligerent as 8's; do you think I could be a 5 because I value knowledge and intelligence? The list goes on.

What results of this is basically a set of very high-level summaries of how each type "looks." They aren't completely invalid; there is a grain of truth, in that if you spent a long time with someone of a given type, very likely they would say or do things that one could judge to match the stereotype. You may not, however, look at a questionnaire they write, or chat with them for 10 minutes or even an hour and be able to accurately determine their type. You may be working with a 7, for example, who exhibits every single stereotype of a 3, but by way of the type 7 passion. You may have someone who highly values the stereotypical traits of an 8 and LEGITIMATELY HAS THOSE TRAITS, but again, by way of a different type, and alongside ADDITIONAL perhaps unconscious behaviors that they are unaware of, or haven't brought to the table because of their self-image that are ABSENT in 8's. 

My opinion isn't that these high level understandings of type should be eradicated (they never will be, so even if I did want that, it wouldn't be worth my time to crusade against them). It's more that they don't actually provide a lot of benefit to the people when they use them in place of the more granular, motivationally-focused understandings of type. I've noticed that the people who have gotten the most out of the enneagram, are comfortable with their type, and know intimately how their type affects them are those who look at the mechanics of the type first, _then_ go outward to explain how the type has impacted theirs or someone else's life. This often leads to great conversations, where everyone in the room has the same type but experiences it through very different life settings, with similarities in behavior/etc that result from the same defenses, attitudes, etc. We often do the opposite of that here, in trying to categorize outside actions and perceived behaviors, then becoming confused when we can't distinguish what type we are "using," since we can't relate with a single stereotype, or relate with several/all.


----------



## Entropic

My controversial opinion is that it is utterly pointless to type people around us in the enneagram, by and large, unless you happen to know this person very intimately or they spilled a lot of their guts in a way they wouldn't to the other Joe. I'm not against typing fictive characters because they are often in lesser dimensionality than real people, including allowing the reader/watcher/listener to gain access to their inner motivations and states via stream-of-consciousness; but real people, including celebrities, just no. This is especially faulty on a forum or similar environment where you don't even have access to observing people's external reactions outside of the words displayed on a computer screen. I'll point to themes that they may have a tendency to depict in their way of being, but those themes may be there for a wide variety of reasons and doesn't suggest they are that enneagram type at all.


----------



## cinnabun

Why do people glorify 4's and 8's?

Why do people think "Oh, I'm dark and mysterious, so I must be a 4."

Or, "I'm a tough bitch who won't take no shit from anybody, so I'm clearly an 8."

Like, no...just no.

I really cringe when I see people walking around, trying to be a 4w5 or something, when they're obviously not. Same goes for 8. Stop trying to be something you're not.

Like cool if you're exploring your options and you aren't very well educated on enneagram (I know I'm not, holla) but I just see so many 4's and 8's around here, and I don't think half of you even are. They're the types everyone wants to be, but the types that's the most misunderstood.


----------



## Vermillion

My controversial opinion is that many of the opinions on this thread aren't very controversial.


----------



## Psithurism

Enneagram is arousing.


----------



## Coburn

The enneagram is a system that absurdly oversimplifies human motives. 

Tri-type is the deus ex machina of the enneagram theory; it's the out used when people start to realize that one number on the enneagram chart can't fully explain their motivations and behaviors.

I'm expecting somewhere down the line, if it hasn't already been done, people will start touting triple tri-types, where you're really all the enneagram points listed in three tri-type batches in descending order of importance.


----------



## Donovan

Coburn said:


> The enneagram is a system that absurdly oversimplifies human motives.
> 
> Tri-type is the deus ex machina of the enneagram theory; it's the out used when people start to realize that one number on the enneagram chart can't fully explain their motivations and behaviors.
> 
> I'm expecting somewhere down the line, if it hasn't already been done, people will start touting triple tri-types, where you're really all the enneagram points listed in three tri-type batches in descending order of importance.


that would be an interesting evolution of the theory, or a part that's implicit. it seems like most everyone would have a subjective tinge of the base motivations that come with each type ("type" is abstract anyhow; a concentration of an aspect of humanity, that of course deviates in reality based each person).


----------



## Kerik_S

ScientiaOmnisEst said:


> Of all the things I could have read today...
> 
> 
> (No relevant comments, just shitposting)


tbh, none of my shit was relevant to the thread. :X

(Sorry...)


----------



## mimesis

Kerik_S said:


> I'm sure you have a storehouse of constructs just like the above-quoted, that you use to convince yourself that your actions are detached, when they really only serve to justify your arrogance. Just because you can rationalize and frame concepts such as "identity attachment", doesn't mean you're accurately gauging if and when you're falling into that attachment: All throughout your first response to me, that had nothing to do with you but you made it about you (ego).
> 
> You seem to think you have a vantage point at which you look at yourself and others objectively, born of some feats of humility and non-attachment... Yet you also can easily be perceived as having a need for others to validate that by speaking on things that anyone with shred of "penetrating insight" would realize serves no practical purpose in communication-- you explain things that go without saying, like how "Ne works" in order to give yourself fodder to publicly display your mental strengths-- other than peacocking and placing you in some sort of "attachment antithesis" with the other person.
> 
> It's not an uncommon thing to see. It's usually a bit less refined and more hotheaded... But it was never the hotheadedness that tipped me off: It was the core need to be seen as non-attached. You have a sophisticated belief system carved-out around this need, as highlighted in what I just quoted from you.
> 
> I don't buy it. I don't see humility or detachment.


Oh, but you don't have to buy it. It was a gift, to bring to your own advantage. 



Kerik_S said:


> Anyone who follows a clause including the words "I'm not saying I'm superior" with "but [something that indicates that the person you're talking about fails to fall in line with the positive qualities you outlined throughout the entirety of the post, such as identity detachment and non-reactivity]"... anyone who could honestly let themselves hit the Post button after typing that has a serious superiority issue that they've manage to convince themselves stems from virtue rather than vice.


By your self-referential logic, I'm sure it would seem valid. It was a response to your reference to inferiority and being affected and stuff. That you keep projecting at me while ignoring it was a response to your own words, is telling. 



Kerik_S said:


> I mean, dude: You said "I'm not superior, but here's where you fall short." After spending the majority of the post basically talking about yourself but shrouding that in impersonal and distancing language like "the ego".


Lol, and the fun part is that you say that I am projecting. Just listen to yourself. 



Kerik_S said:


> You might want to revise your construct to include something other than _"People who act in a way that signals identity attachment are triggered by image-fixations {'dreading humiliation', as if anything you said was either challenging or humbling}"_ because people who are a lot "smarter or wiser" than you recognized that image is but one core-driving fixation. And I'd take their diatribes over yours any day.


Omg you are a bad listener as well. I believe I had stated clearly people can indentify with various things. Like intellectual prowess, self-awareness, hair-do, horsepower and yes dicks. Thanks for kicking in a door that was already open. 

I don't think what I said was challenging, but a lot depends on the level of personal investment. Like the bad hair day example. If someone doesn't dare to leave his house because of that, it's not because of the hair, but because of their attitude (or internalized -perceived/believed/anticipated attitudes of others), and how they cope with fear or shame. Because other people still leave their house even though their hair looks shit. 



Kerik_S said:


> Notice, I don't need to distance myself from my convictions to justify speaking on them like you do. It doesn't make you smarter or wiser or more humble-- it makes you self-deluding and capable of justifying behaviors that run counter to everything you claim to value.


Is this you shame tactics? Fine, you don't have to believe me. And I don't see why or what I need to justify. It's your opinion and let's just refer to previous posts, because I really don't have time for this.


----------



## Kerik_S

mimesis said:


> It's your opinion and let's just refer to previous posts, because I really don't have time for this.


Agreed. I said my piece and likewise want to move on


----------



## newbie const

Religion,culture and domestic upbringing plays a very big role (bigger than people think) in one's personality.It even can determine one's motivation (genetics plays a role here),so we should give up the habit of stereotyping for the sake of neutrality.

For example,compare a 8w7 lived his whole life at his own home in a peaceful way vs a bedouin 9w1 who lived all his life roaming at Sahara desert.Who will be more realistic?more actively adventurous?tougher?

Motivation is all,man,behaviour is very diverse.


----------



## newbie const

Religion,culture and domestic upbringing play a very big role (bigger than people think) in one's personality.It even can confuse one's motivation (genetics plays a role here),so we should give up the habit of stereotyping for the sake of neutrality.

For example,compare a 8w7 lived his whole life at his own home in a peaceful way vs a bedouin 9w1 who lived all his life roaming at Sahara desert.Who will be more realistic?more actively adventurous?tougher?

Motivation is all,man,behaviour is very diverse.


----------



## newbie const

Some more:

1)Mature 6s,especially 6w5s are not paranoid assholes.They can be competent and surprisingly levelheaded when solving a problem.Unwanted anxiety is more of a w6 issue I think.

2)w6 (5w6 & 7w6) are much more in common than it seems.Both are highly inquisitive,love odd and exotic ideas and may have worry and anxiety issue more than their 5w4 and 7w8 brethren.

3)Though subwing theory is quite fuzzy,subwing relations can be very similar.It is not odd to confuse your 3w2 fix with 4w3 or vice versa.


----------



## newbie const

To correlate intellectuality,intelligence and these brain-mind traits with certain enneatypes is fallacious.Not only 5s and w5s are intellectuals,there are very intellectual 8w9/2w1s too.

Sx instinct is not anti-intellectual at all.They crave for depth and meaning.The only instinct which is quite unintellectual in general is Sp instinct (they are fairly intelligent though,and Sx-firsts in my view are quite less intelligent but intellectuality is not alien to them,particularly Sx 7,5 and 4s.


----------



## Bricolage

newbie const said:


> To correlate intellectuality,intelligence and these brain-mind traits with certain enneatypes is fallacious.Not only 5s and w5s are intellectuals,there are very intellectual 8w9/2w1s too.
> 
> Sx instinct is not anti-intellectual at all.They crave for depth and meaning.The only instinct which is quite unintellectual in general is Sp instinct (they are fairly intelligent though,and Sx-firsts in my view are quite less intelligent but intellectuality is not alien to them,particularly Sx 7,5 and 4s.


I'm yet to meet m/any intellectual 2w1s tbh. And I don't see what the instincts have to do with being "intellectual" at all.


----------



## taqwoman

1. Wing theory is useless and is more based on "let's make a cool nonagon" than anything of substance

2. People should pay more attention to tritype

3. The key motivation of my life (shame over not being a good enough person) isn't what type 6 says (that fear motivates everything i do). Remember folks have their own experiences past the enneagram.

4. I have a difficult time getting along with folks whose insecurity is more "why meeeee" than "i should be better". I also have trouble getting along with folks with 4 in their tritype (related?)

5. I don't actually consider seeing the world as a dangerous place i need to protect/prepare myself from a flaw


----------



## newbie const

Bricolage said:


> I'm yet to meet m/any intellectual 2w1s tbh. And I don't see what the instincts have to do with being "intellectual" at all.


I am refuting the proposal that Sx-firsts in general are the most anti-intellectual of the instincts.Personally I believe any instinct can be intellectual.But Sp in general is more pragmatic than the two other instincts,so they have a chance to move away from the academic/bookish intellectuality.That in no way means that they can't be intellectual.


----------



## Lakigigar

Swordsman of Mana said:


> hide your kids, hide your wives, hide your husbands
> 
> as usual, I will lead by example
> 1) Sexual 4 is by far the most over-typed subtype, especially on forums. Sexual 4 is a vicious, *witchy* personality, and possibly the most angry of all 27 subtypes. they are not at all like the sensitive lil INFPs who usually type as such. think Joan Crawford, Maleficent, Loki or Cersei Lannister, not romantic INFP artist.
> 2) The sexual instinct has quite a bit to do with sex (in the broader sense. not just the physical act obviously), but little to do with "intimacy" in the way that most people use the term. that has more to do with the heart center, and the two Feeling functions in JCF. if correlated with any instinct, it would probably be Social rather than Sexual, though each of the instincts is "intimate" in it's own way (imo, whichever is the most intimate depends on the subtype. ex: Sexual 5 is an extremely romantic, tender type with a lot of internal warmth while Social 5 is icy and almost exaggeratedly detached and cold. conversely, the Sexual 4 is more "ice/fire" than it is "warm" or "intimate", while the Social 4 is more sensitive, focused on personal relationships and generally a little more romantic).
> 3) The Sexual instinct is, compared to it's sister subtypes of the same core, the most anti-intellectual. it is also the most "instinctual" in the common sense of the word and tends to be bored by activities which require detached thinking. Sexual types are energy vampires and tend to "turn off" if things stay detached, analytical and neutral for too long.
> 4) I have don't have a clue why 4 and 5 are so highly regarded in Enneagram communities. being "deep", reflective and intellectual is a waste of time without goals to actually get something done and get a result. Frankly, these two types seem pretty useless to me.
> 5) People who refuse to type fictional characters are pretentious and dismissive. well written fictional characters are easier to type and serve as better exemplars because the plot is usually, in one way or another, focused on their Enneagram related fixations.
> 6) Heart center types in general base little of their decisions off of pragmatism in and of itself, which probably stems from the fact that it is the only center whose core issues are not related to survival. 2s and 3s ask "what do people want me to do?" "what will bring me prestige/glory/respect?". when you remove social support and resistance from the equation, neither have any clue what to do next. as for 4s, they're not really very pragmatic from the get go (in fact, many even take pride in this lack of pragmatism, seeing it as more "industrialized" rather than "authentic"). This leads to a lack of common sense coupled with a tendency to want to pour frivolous levels of emotion into otherwise meaningless tasks.


Every topic i visit, i see a post where you hate sexual 4's or hate 461's. I have the feeling that i want to met you because of this. You're right in some ways. Wrong in other ways. Indeed, there are no two persons the same. I think i'm smart because i just have the power to be dedicated to something and know everything about something (maybe it's the 1 working?), but because of this i really know a lot about topics where i'm interested it. However in other cases, i never can play a game longer then 30 minutes, films are often too long. If i'm interested in it, i can stick to something, but if i'm not interested, then i do something else.

Does this post remind you of a typical 461? http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/549449-tritype-146-subtype-sx-so-discussion.html#post25854570 :tongue:

I know i can be vengeful at times, but i learn to control it. So in most cases, people will never see the vengeful person in me, and i have no agression problems (i also never use physical attack, if i want to attack someone it would be verbal or emotional -> publically humiliating someone). But like i said, i keep it under control. But i can have times like: fuck it, i want to destroy him and 10 minutes later i put it in perspective, and it's over. Or that i feel bad because i posted something/said something that i regret, or vice versa. (someone said this to me, and it takes a long time to think to something else). If people do something wrong, i can understand why they do it (after some time) and forgive it/forget about it/just say you understand. My main driver is probably envy. I know people that are kind of arch enemies because of some success and prestige they have. And they don't deserve it for some reasons (i'm not the only one who hated him) because it is a populist. This is also the reason why i support the underdog. I'm envious at people that are more mighty, and i want an equal system for everyone (because it conflicts with my sx subtype). If everything was equal, i wouldn't have the drive to do better then others and i could finally feel relaxed (and if people loved me).

That's why i hate systems like facebook (with likes and that kind of stuff), because it always feels like competition. You're a winner, you hate losing. (except if you have no expectations from something). 

*I learned the best revenge is success.* If i want to study again, i think the only reason why i'm going to study again, is because i hate the fact that other people have more success then me. (and it's the only way to travel to other countries with more money). I have no motivation, but it could be the only motivation i have now.

But i will fight for the rights for minorities, always. And i want to have everbody happy as long they respect me. I want a fair, honest world (no corruption). A lot of things that are happening in this world conflict with my ideology.


----------



## nburns

Here is my latest theory on the Enneagram: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/778570-enneagram-types-theory.html

It hasn't exactly generated much controversy so far, but I'm not sure that more than a couple people have read it.


----------



## Figure

Here is a collection of, just, some overall things I think the enneagram makes out to be important but really aren't at all:

1. Lines of Connection

Why? The theory implies that your type can be verified by looking for positive signs of your line of integration type, and negative signs of your line of disintegration when under stress. In my experience, you share positive and negative traits of both lines of connection, and those lines aren't the most outward characteristic that would verify a type. Some people report not even relating with one or more lines of connection_ at all. _
 
2. Positive behavioral attributes of types

Why? Because in many cases, the type itself may cause behavior but not be the main driver, or a distinct driver of that behavior. There is no concrete reason, for example, that "intelligence" is a unique identifier of type 5. It may be the case that many 5's are intelligent, but such is true of many other people of different types. What makes 5 a 5 (again, arbitrary example) is not well-articulated by most theorists.

3. Instinctual Variant type descriptions on their own (i.e. "Description of a Social")

Why? Specifically referring to subtype descriptions that do NOT link to a core enneatype, such as "how to identify SP" or "all SX's do XYZ." The Instinctual Variant will never exist separate from core type; there is never a time in which the core type does not blend with the IV. There is therefore no time that a pure description of an IV would be more accurate than IV + core type.

4. Comparing types to neuroses, or other psychological disorders

Why? An enneagram type is not a psychological disorder, nor is it an anomaly from regular human habits. A disorder by definition is a clinically significant condition that in some way disables someone in a way that causes enough harm to pain to inhibit them from normal functioning. Every person has a core enneatype and the vast majority of people function normally. Overdependence on a single enneatype can cause situational suffering, or a myopic point of reference that makes it difficult for someone to avoid or resolve existing suffering but the vast instances of having an enneagram type does not cause a clinically significant psychological issue. The vast instances of having an enneagram type causes lack of self-awareness, and the over-identification with a specific self image but the level of management of these consequences of having a type is purely choice to each person.
Additionally, clinical neuroses follow more of a pathway as to being treatable/curable/not. Enneagram types follow no such path, and remain to the individual's discretion as to what type he/she believes to be. Neuroses typically follow observable outer signs, whereas the bulk of verifiable enneagram, indicators are more internal, and able to be seen by one's inner observer. 

​ 5. Permanent spiritual growth by undoing one's type

Why? Because in my experience the spiritual growth that comes as a result of working hands on with enneatype requires repeated effort. Although insights you may attain into your type may permanently change your self concepts or way you understand yourself, your type itself is embedded in your psyche and will fundamentally force you into one narrow mindset by reflex. You will periodically slip back into the habits of your type even _after_ seeing what exists outside of it regardless of whether it is apt to do so or not. The upside to that is that typically stepping outside of your type's grip will teach you a lot, and you have infinite opportunities to do so.


----------



## Firelioness

Am I the only enneagram enthusiast who thinks the MBTI is crap? Because I really do. For entertainment purposes only. People start talking about it and I roll my eyes hard. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Fumetsu

Distortions said:


> Hrm, I considered sx-last because I can have some discomfort with intimacy, though I do resonate with the idea of being an "energy vampire" (I remembered seeing the name "hungry ghost" for one of the stacks though, which I like too). Anyway, I do see sx being about intimacy too though, in the sense of wanting to break down barriers and sinking their teeth into the beating pulse of things. Or something like that. I can see how it makes sense for the sexual instinct to be more "destructive" because you have to break something in order to truly get to the inside and connect with it. At least, that's how it seems...
> 
> Agreed about using fictional characters as examples, but then I'm biased because I got into enneagram in the first place to type characters. But yeah, with a fictional character, you might actually be able to see inside their mind, which you can't with a real person (though you can try). Of course, they're going to be more simplistic in comparison, but that also mean they might embody their type more purely, making them a more clear example.
> 
> Anyway, I'm not really sure what counts as a controversial opinion or not, as I'm not necessarily good at paying attention to "popular" opinions so much as what individual posters say.
> 
> 
> That makes some sense, but then this focus on someone else's problem and denial of their own is to convince themselves of their own strength basically, right? So if that's _truly _selfless is arguable, but then complete selflessness probably isn't possible anyway. =P


Noooo. It isn't something we do intentionally. We don't " convince" ourselves of anything as we are " doers". Convincing ourselves of anything would be a waste of time that could be spent " doing".


----------



## nburns

Firelioness said:


> Am I the only enneagram enthusiast who thinks the MBTI is crap? Because I really do. For entertainment purposes only. People start talking about it and I roll my eyes hard.


I do think the MBTI is pretty boring and lame. But I try not to rain on anyone's parade.


----------



## maryapple

It is slightly more likely that I am a 4 than a 1, but the main reason I don't embrace 4 is because I the "soft, delicate, emotions-above-all, and/or non-functional" portrait of the 4 turns me off completely. I can't even really relate to 95% of the threads on the 4 sub-forum (but that might be because that place is overrun with INFPs


----------



## Shadow Tag

@maryapple

There could be mistypes, but you could also be an sp 4. It's the counter type, as in it doesn't act like a 4, but the core motivations, desires, and fears are those of a 4.

Anyway, my controversial opinion is that you can loosely correlate Jungian functions with the Enneagram. What I mean by this is that certain functions offer a path of least resistance to certain enneagram types. Like, an Fe-dom can be any type based on how they grew up and defining experiences in their life, but there's a reason there are so many type 2 Fe-doms. I don't take MBTI into account when typing individual people, but the two systems still deal with personality on some level.


----------



## Firelioness

maryapple said:


> It is slightly more likely that I am a 4 than a 1, but the main reason I don't embrace 4 is because I the "soft, delicate, emotions-above-all, and/or non-functional" portrait of the 4 turns me off completely. I can't even really relate to 95% of the threads on the 4 sub-forum (but that might be because that place is overrun with INFPs


The Four forum is kinda whiney at times. 

All types have the potential to be healthy and unhealthy. The soft delicate emotions above all non functional four doesn't define Fourness. I don't think of myself that way. 

But the fact is that this is an Internet message board. As such it's going to attract the introspective (4s in general) and the unhappy who are using it to process through stuff. It's going to skew unhealthy. Thus it can't be relied upon as a representative sampling. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Animal

Firelioness said:


> The Four forum is kinda whiney at times.
> 
> All types have the potential to be healthy and unhealthy. The soft delicate emotions above all non functional four doesn't define Fourness. I don't think of myself that way.


I agree. I have enough seretonin to drown an army, confidence and willpower, and when I'm most stressed the emotion most prominent is anger. That doesn't change the fact that I'm intensely in touch with the broader spectrum of my emotions, and that my core issues are around my sense of self, identity, envy and longing, awareness of what's lacking, the gap between my ideal self and real flawed self etc.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Nissa Nissa said:


> I've been thinking lately that 'intense' is actually pretty accurate depiction of sx
> 
> And I think a lot of qualities get disputed online about types...the 'well X can be Y, too' comes more from glorifying Y trait, than X type, if that makes sense


Hm, yeah. Or like with passion, I do believe Sx types aren't the only ones who can be passionate, but to _identify _with their passion, or valuing it for its own sake, is often Sx-y.


----------



## Dangerose

Octavarium said:


> Yes, this is very true and not talked about enough. It always amuses me when people say that everybody wants to be [insert quality that I’ve never cared much about having here]. I suppose it’s just part of human nature that it’s difficult to fully understand that other people don’t necessarily value the things we value. Not everybody cares as much as you (general you, not you personally) about being unique, or deep, or strong, or clever, or brave, or loving, or whatever it is you want to be. We all have our ego invested in being a certain way, and that, at least in part, is what the Enneagram is about. I’d even say that wanting to be a certain type is one piece of evidence that you are in fact that type. It’s not the only factor, and there are people who want to be something other than what they are (if, say, their parents pressured them into being something different) but it is one factor among many.
> 
> For anyone who’s not convinced, think of it this way: some people say 8s are glorified because they are portrayed as being strong. A person who says that probably thinks most people value strength above the qualities attributed to the other types, so they probably value strength above the other qualities themselves. Someone who values strength that much quite possibly has an ego investment in being strong, and having an ego investment in being strong is one piece of evidence that the person is an 8. Similar examples could be given for all the types.


yesss exactly, I could have only dreamed of phrasing it this simply and eloquently


----------



## mistakenforstranger

I feel like all the types are in some way "image" types. Is it really exclusive to 2s, 3s, and 4s? Doesn't a 1 want to be _seen_ as a good person, or an 8 as a person of strength, a 5 as knowledgeable, or a 9 as peaceful? Though, I will say, with a 1 or 8, it's probably more about _being_ a good person or strong person, respectively, than being seen as one, but I don't think embodying an _image_ of those qualities is necessarily irrelevant here either. 

I think we stress image too much onto 2s, 3s, and 4s, when the real issue with these types is *shame*. 3s probably struggle the most with image, or are image-conscious, as a type, but does this extend to 2s and 4s (or, at least those without 3-wing influence)? For instance, why would a 2 only be concerned with being _seen_ as helpful (as a so-called image type), when they want to _be_ helpful (and often are) as well? I mean, there's the heart/shame, head/fear, and gut/anger triads, which has a symmetrical quality to it, but for some reason we also attach "image" onto heart types as this separate category, but aren't all our types "personas" (i.e. an image we project of ourselves) in a way that isn't the real self?


----------



## lametaoist

mistakenforstranger said:


> I feel like all the types are in some way "image" types. Is it really exclusive to 2s, 3s, and 4s? Doesn't a 1 want to be _seen_ as a good person, or an 8 as a person of strength, a 5 as knowledgeable, or a 9 as peaceful? Though, I will say, with a 1 or 8, it's probably more about _being_ a good person or strong person, respectively, than being seen as one, but I don't think embodying an _image_ of those qualities is necessarily irrelevant here either.
> 
> I think we stress image too much onto 2s, 3s, and 4s, when the real issue with these types is *shame*. 3s probably struggle the most with image, or are image-conscious, as a type, but does this extend to 2s and 4s (or, at least those without 3-wing influence)? For instance, why would a 2 only be concerned with being _seen_ as helpful (as a so-called image type), when they want to _be_ helpful (and often are) as well? I mean, there's the heart/shame, head/fear, and gut/anger triads, which has a symmetrical quality to it, but for some reason we also attach "image" onto heart types as this separate category, but aren't all our types "personas" (i.e. an image we project of ourselves) in a way that isn't the real self?


It's a little more complicated than that. In my experience, for a type 1, good and bad is independent of people's perception. That is, in fact the highest standard that someone can reach. If that highest authority is God, or Allah, or Buddha, or if the authority is the idealized standard of medical ethics, or ethical reasoning, or something like that, than a person can be considered good even if people don't perceive the person as being good. To a type 1, that is why it is more important than just being perceived as good or bad. For 8s like me, being seen as strong is irrelevant if you aren't strong when it matters, so we have a tendency to test our strength, often somewhat frequently, and sometimes to the detriment of our own health. I do it privately because I don't considered the opinion of others to be a sufficient judge of strength. 

Wanting to be helpful is dependent upon the person being helped, so it is harder to define objectively. I imagine this a conflict that 1w2s and 2w1s face. It is true that the easiest way for others to see them as helpful is to be helpful. And I imagine that healthier folks do just that. 

It would seem that the different types handle and prioritize perception differently. The reason that *shame* is such a big deal in the heart triad is because it is a wound to a person's self-perception. Shame is based on one's belief about how others see us. For folks that are less worried about that, shame is less of a primary driving force. The less you care about how others perceive you, the less you make it part of your self-definition, and the less shame you feel. 

Other triads define themselves based on different characteristics. The head triad is often aware of the perception of others, but anxiety is generally as stronger driver. Social anxiety may be one of the dynamics of the anxiety, just as many self-preservation ones experience a great deal of anxiety, but the source of the anxiety is different, and the resolution is different.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

Personally I don't feel like I'm driven by image, at least not primarily so. I can be very self-conscious in a way, or experience a lot of shame, but I don't live and breathe my image the way image types do. I even have a hard time taking it seriously most of the time.


----------



## star tripper

Remnants said:


> Personally I don't feel like I'm driven by image, at least not primarily so. I can be very self-conscious in a way, or experience a lot of shame, but I don't live and breathe my image the way image types do. I even have a hard time taking it seriously most of the time.


Yeah, plus I don't know 9s who actively desire to be seen as peaceful. My 9 best friend would rather be seen the exact opposite way, though she doesn't actively try to be seen that way either. My 7 boyfriend is also very obviously not driven by image. He doesn't wanna be seen as experienced; he simply wants to experience. It's one of the things I love about the two of them, perhaps the main thing haha. I grew up around image types so they're breaths of fresh air to me.


----------



## mistakenforstranger

lametaoist said:


> It's a little more complicated than that. In my experience, for a type 1, good and bad is independent of people's perception. That is, in fact the highest standard that someone can reach. If that highest authority is God, or Allah, or Buddha, or if the authority is the idealized standard of medical ethics, or ethical reasoning, or something like that, than a person can be considered good even if people don't perceive the person as being good. To a type 1, that is why it is more important than just being perceived as good or bad. For 8s like me, being seen as strong is irrelevant if you aren't strong when it matters, so we have a tendency to test our strength, often somewhat frequently, and sometimes to the detriment of our own health. I do it privately because I don't considered the opinion of others to be a sufficient judge of strength.


Yes, and I actually do agree with you here, which is why I said they also want to _be_ those things rather than merely embodying an image of them, because of course, an image wouldn't be enough for those types. Though, don't you think 1s want to _look_ perfect too? I've definitely seen it in 1s where they will be dressed-to-nines, perfect in every way, basically so no one can criticize them, and they can look down on others who don't look this way, or embody this ideal, because they've set the standard, so it can still be very image-focused. On the other hand, you do have 1s like Bernie Sanders, whose hair is a mess and is wearing ill-fitting suits, and it doesn't seem to bother him too much. :laughing:



> Wanting to be helpful is dependent upon the person being helped, so it is harder to define objectively. I imagine this a conflict that 1w2s and 2w1s face. It is true that the easiest way for others to see them as helpful is to be helpful. And I imagine that healthier folks do just that.


Again, I just don't see actual 2s, especially 2w1s, really doing things for others in order to merely look helpful, and therefore that it's entirely image-based, because they genuinely mean it. Though, I will say, they may do things for others in order to get something in return, so they do have ulterior motives in their helping or assisting, which is why they're also a power-based triad. They're trying, like all heart-types, to fill an inner lack/emptiness and loss of their own value (i.e. shame) rather than to live up to an "image". 



> It would seem that the different types handle and prioritize perception differently. The reason that *shame* is such a big deal in the heart triad is because it is a wound to a person's self-perception. Shame is based on one's belief about how others see us. For folks that are less worried about that, shame is less of a primary driving force. The less you care about how others perceive you, the less you make it part of your self-definition, and the less shame you feel.


Yes, I do agree, but I don't think shame necessarily has to _originate_ from how others perceive you. It definitely can, and I'm not denying that, but then why do 4s hate themselves so much (at least in lower health levels) still no matter what anyone thinks of them? The shame can be extremely internal to the self, and thus why 4s struggle with their self-image, or as you say, "a person's self-perception", regardless of how it's perceived by others. I think when we're talking about how an *image* is perceived *by others* we're not talking about "image types", we're talking about *3s *and/or those types with 3-influence (2w3, 4w3), and perhaps Social instinct too, and maybe that's more the point I wanted to make instead of that _every type_ can be concerned with image, but I do see exceptions to this rule and that it's not always the 2s, 3s, and 4s who focus on image either. My point is to remember it's more about shame with these types than it is image, unless they're a 3, who are very image-focused.

Riso-Hudson on 3s at Level 5:



> Level 5: *Become image-conscious, highly concerned with how they are perceived.* Begin to package themselves according to the expectations of others and what they need to do to be successful. Pragmatic and efficient, but also premeditated, losing touch with their own feelings beneath a smooth facade. Problems with intimacy, credibility, and "phoniness" emerge.





Remnants said:


> Personally I don't feel like I'm driven by image, at least not primarily so. I can be very self-conscious in a way, or experience a lot of shame, but I don't live and breathe my image the way image types do. I even have a hard time taking it seriously most of the time.


What do you mean by live and breathe an image? I certainly don't think I do, even as a 4, and living in that way sounds incredibly shallow. I see this more in 4w3s, because of that 3-influence again, with wanting to cultivate a specific image. I think 4w5s would rather occupy their time doing something else than living and breathing an image, and in some cases, may even be _anti-image_ too as a kind of rebellion of sorts.


----------



## lametaoist

mistakenforstranger said:


> Yes, and I actually do agree with you here, which is why I said they also want to _be_ those things rather than merely embodying an image of them, because of course, an image wouldn't be enough for those types. Though, don't you think 1s want to _look_ perfect too? I've definitely seen it in 1s where they will be dressed-to-nines, perfect in every way, basically so no one can criticize them, and they can look down on others who don't look this way, or embody this ideal, because they've set the standard, so it can still be very image-focused. On the other hand, you do have 1s like Bernie Sanders, whose hair is a mess and is wearing ill-fitting suits, and it doesn't seem to bother him too much. :laughing:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I just don't see actual 2s, especially 2w1s, really doing things for others in order to merely look helpful, and therefore that it's entirely image-based, because they genuinely mean it. Though, I will say, they may do things for others in order to get something in return, so they do have ulterior motives in their helping or assisting, which is why they're also a power-based triad. They're trying, like all heart-types, to fill an inner lack/emptiness and loss of their own value (i.e. shame) rather than to live up to an "image".
> 
> 
> Yes, I do agree, but I don't think shame necessarily has to _originate_ from how others perceive you. It definitely can, and I'm not denying that, but then why do 4s hate themselves so much (at least in lower health levels) still no matter what anyone thinks of them? The shame can be extremely internal to the self, and thus why 4s struggle with their self-image, or as you say, "a person's self-perception", regardless of how it's perceived by others. I think when we're talking about how an *image* is perceived *by others* we're not talking about "image types", we're talking about *3s *and/or those types with 3-influence (2w3, 4w3), and perhaps Social instinct too, and maybe that's more the point I wanted to make instead of that _every type_ can be concerned with image, but I do see exceptions to this rule and that it's not always the 2s, 3s, and 4s who focus on image either. My point is to remember it's more about shame with these types than it is image, unless they're a 3, who are very image-focused.


I would also agree that healthy folks in the heart triad genuinely try to be either helpful, great, or unique, depending upon their particular flavor. It's in the less healthy area that problems start to show up. Unhealthier versions of type 2, from what I understand, can be more manipulative or seductive, depending upon the instinctual variant. Sometimes they help in order to guilt others into reciprocating, or help in order to curry favor, or for personal gain. They genuinely want to be helpful, but it is for the purpose of eliciting a specific reaction from the other person, rather than because it is "the right thing to do" like a 1, or for the sake of security, like a 6. 

Part of what Riso and Hudson talk about with levels of health is that the type descriptions are basically of unhealthy people. The healthier a person is, the more they are liberated from the specific dynamics of a given type. A healthy person in the heart triad probably will be less image conscious, but they will probably be more image conscious than a number of the other types. 

Let's not also forget that unhealthy 1s take on the characteristics of unhealthy 4s, so being image conscious is buried in there somewhere, but tends to come out more under extreme stress or similar unhealthy circumstances, unless a person has learned how to balance it in i healthy way.


----------



## firegrace

OK @Swordsman of Mana Here goes:

We are all 9 types at once. We are not "a 4" or "a 5", but all 9 types at once.

We have access to ALL of the healthy (and unhealthy) qualities of all types at all times. A 4 CAN be protective and dominant like an 8. A 9 CAN be a high achiever like a 3, etc. 

Our type is fluid until we transcend a type. We must develop ALL of the healthy qualities of all types. 

The point of the enneagram is to gather all of the healthy qualities of all types and become a completely balanced person. We must become self improving like a 1, helpful and beneficent like a 2, high achieving and goal oriented like a 3, authentic and self revealing like a 4, etc. We must have conscious and then unconscious access to all of the healthy qualities of all the types.

The best way to use the enneagram is to focus on gathering qualities and values from your preferred type until you reach transcendence. If you are "interested" in the 4, and feel that's you, develop the healthy qualities of the 4 until you either transcend or want to develop the qualities of another type, and rinse a repeat. 

A human cannot be put into a box of "I am a 4" or "I am a 5." No, you're a unique human being with unique values, unique experiences, goals, desires, ambitions, etc, and you're far more than anyone could ever describe you.


----------



## Handsome Dyke

kmal91 said:


> A human cannot be put into a box of "I am a 4" or "I am a 5." No, you're a unique human being with unique values, unique experiences, goals, desires, ambitions, etc, and you're far more than anyone could ever describe you.


Being one Enneagram type _is_ a sign of uniqueness. Isn't everybody having access to all health levels of all types at all times more of a box than people having individual types and levels? What you are saying seems contradictory.


----------



## firegrace

Benty Badass said:


> Being one Enneagram type _is_ a sign of uniqueness. Isn't everybody having access to all health levels of all types at all times more of a box than people having individual types and levels? What you are saying seems contradictory.


If that box contains everything there is, it isn't really a box. If the box only contains enneagram type 4 characteristics, it is a silly box to submit to with our (mostly) unlimited potential.


----------



## Potatooesunshinerays

Cheese is tasty


----------



## Jerdle

Potatooesunshinerays said:


> Cheese is tasty


Controversial? Yes, cheese sucks.
Enneagram? No.
Wrong thread.


----------



## 0+n*1

You're not so much what you're looking for but what you're running away from or what hinders you to get where you really want to or where you think you're heading towards to. That said, what I really mean is that type is not always motivation. I, as a six, never recall being driven towards security or certainty or desiring reliance on something, wishing I could trust something or someone, or looking for an authority. I aim higher. But I know what stops me from being my best self, where I fall into unwillingly, what I end up fighting against time and time again


----------



## Aluminum Frost

You ever watch Disney's Inside Out? Yeah, that's basically what Enneagram is. What mood you display most often. Some days I feel like a completely different type. I type as 5 and feel 5 a lot but a lot of the time I don't feel it at all. Some days I feel 7 or 8 or 9 or 3. It's unnecessary bs. Instinctual variants make perfect sense though, people should focus more on that.


----------



## Mooncutter

We know for a verified fact that most men are Thinkers. And all 5's are Thinkers. So this is 100% true.


----------

