# Typing by appearance?



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

Hi everyone. I've seen several arguments recently about typing people by their appearances, or going off of a single picture to make a judgment about someone's type in the Enneagram and/or Myers Briggs.

Do you think people's appearances provide adequate information for typing them? If so, why?

I confess, I can't see any serious merit in the practice. It's sort of fun to think, _"Oh, he/she looks like a __,"_ and it's funny when someone looks the way you would expect for their type, but I for one would need more information to make a call on the person's actual personality. I'm very curious to hear everyone else's perspectives on this.


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

I'd say no. The Enneagram is already a freaking slippery system when it comes to typing somebody. It's way too "invisible" at first glance from the eye of the beholder. It gets to the point that, while certain behavioral patterns can help narrow down one's Enneagram type, you can't use outward appearances to definitely come to the conclusion of any type. If you read Enneagram literature, you read all about how say, sp 6s may look like 2s sometimes, or how so 9s can resemble 3s sometimes, etc. Isolated outward expressions of a core Enneagram type can look like a variety of types; you need to dig deeper in order to find out _why_ a certain type acts this way. So to take an even more reductionist approach and base types off of looks seems silly.


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

Views from Kanto said:


> I'd say no. The Enneagram is already a freaking slippery system when it comes to typing somebody. It's way too "invisible" at first glance from the eye of the beholder. It gets to the point that, while certain behavioral patterns can help narrow down one's Enneagram type, you can't use outward appearances to definitely come to the conclusion of any type. If you read Enneagram literature, you read all about how say, sp 6s may look like 2s sometimes, or how so 9s can resemble 3s sometimes, etc. Isolated outward expressions of a core Enneagram type can look like a variety of types; you need to dig deeper in order to find out _why_ a certain type acts this way. So to take an even more reductionist approach and base types off of looks seems silly.


I agree completely.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

What do you mean with "appearance"? What do you see when you look at someone's picture?


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

Sun Daeva said:


> What do you mean with "appearance"? What do you see when you look at someone's picture?


Basically, I'm posing the question if someone's look or 'vibe' is an adequate measure for judging their personality type(s). I don't think it is, but I'm curious about other people's opinions on the subject. 

What do YOU see when you look at someone's picture? I see how they're presenting themselves to the world (or a single moment of their life captured on camera), but that may be misleading and/or not indicative of their true personality.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

throughtheroses said:


> Basically, I'm posing the question if someone's look or 'vibe' is an adequate measure for judging their personality type(s). I don't think it is, but I'm curious about other people's opinions on the subject.
> 
> What do YOU see when you look at someone's picture? I see how they're presenting themselves to the world (or a single moment of their life captured on camera), but that may be misleading and/or not indicative of their true personality.


Could one moment be misleading? Of course.
Will it be indicative of their "true personality"? I say yes: every choice, every action, is indicative of a person's personality. The choice to mislead in the first place is meaningful. When it comes to assessing a person's personality, every bit of information is valuable. *To ignore one hand gesture is to ignore the entirety of the person.*

I'm not saying typing someone on a single picture is very productive. But multiple shots? Especially candid ones? Yes.
Hell, even the posed ones will be showing people's true colors. Every photographer knows you play to the model's strengths: you don't cast a E4 to play the E8.

What I see when looking at people's pictures is their gestalt.



> gestalt
> 
> ge·stalt
> ɡəˈSHtält,-ˈSHtôlt/
> ...


Anyone who types without taking gestalt into account and how people present themselves to the world is lacking in judgment. It's a typing with no foundation, as reality itself is THE test of truth.
So in that spirit, not taking appearance and everything that comes with it (gestalt) into account is just plain ignorance.

Of course, this practice requires experience. It requires one to pay attention to the words laying silently on their lips, to the smile underneath the smile, to what the eyes are looking for: what is it that they want out of the world?
It requires seeing someone's presence in the world. Obviously direct interaction is required to make the best out of this method, but lacking this, a picture says more than a thousand words.

And as always, this isn't a water-tight approach to typing, because such a thing doesn't exist. Anyone who claims otherwise is full of shit.
What we _can_ do is take in as much information as possible about an individual, and gestalt is a huge factor in determining someone's type. And then? Then we hope that our _interpretation_ is hitting the mark. Because no matter what approach we take, no matter how hard we try to stay unbiased and loyal to the (various) theories, it is and always will be *our subjective interpretation of another human being*.

And _always, always, always_ be open to new information. Yes, this includes "appearance".


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

I think it can be very interesting to read about visual observations of various types, though it's not the most essential thing about type, so probably best not to get too hung up on it.


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

Sun Daeva said:


> Could one moment be misleading? Of course.
> Will it be indicative of their "true personality"? I say yes: every choice, every action, is indicative of a person's personality. The choice to mislead in the first place is meaningful. When it comes to assessing a person's personality, every bit of information is valuable. *To ignore one hand gesture is to ignore the entirety of the person.*
> 
> I'm not saying typing someone on a single picture is very productive. But multiple shots? Especially candid ones? Yes.
> ...


Speaking as someone who photographs horribly in candid shots, I have to disagree. If someone judged my personality based on a random assortment of pictures that I didn't even want taken in the first place, I'd probably come across as an insane 7 or something. That being said, your point of view is very interesting, so thank you for going into more detail. I think that pictures people post _themselves_ are more indicative than, say, paparazzi shots of celebrities, because there's a degree of agency about how someone wants to be perceived by others.

Do you mind if I do an experiment? Here are several pictures of me throughout the years. Based on these, what would you infer about my personality?


* *














































All but one of these pictures were taken by someone else. Does that make a difference in your assessment? What about the fact that I'm posting them? What "image" do you think I'm trying to sell? Does that have anything to do with my "true" self?


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

I think because enneagram is about core motivations/fears, it's going to be pretty difficult to get that from photos. You could interpret why someone's posing/not posing, what their relationship to the camera is, where they are etc. but you don't really need that - you need to work out what's driving them and, usually, it's easier to do that through conversation and questions (so long as they're being truthful and you're not being leading).
I'm not saying it's impossible, because I can't be sure of that, it's just not the most straightforward way of going about it and is even more open to interpretation.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

throughtheroses said:


> Do you mind if I do an experiment? Here are several pictures of me throughout the years. Based on these, what would you infer about my personality?
> 
> 
> * *
> ...


I see a lot of pushing forward and holding back in your pictures. A tendency to want to reach out to the world and enjoy freedom, yet also a great deal of hesitation that tends to stop you in your tracks.
These photos show a strong desire for the new and exciting, and yet also a questioning of reality. Wanting to go forward but being unsure of the steps to take. Go and stop, go and stop.

This quality might also come through in how you approach people: you either tend to stay quiet, holding back from giving too much away, or you become highly enthused and spirited. It's hard to find the medium.

You will probably age well: always retaining and nurturing the child within, never losing touch with it. People might compliment you on your playfulness (even if you rarely actually let go) and on showing people how to approach life from angles that they would've never thought of themselves.

You harbor the archetypes of both the child and the daredevil. They coexist within you. You weave them together in a poetic blend of gentle skepticism and powerful curiosity. Always looking for creative ways to express your original ideas.


----------



## Scarlet Eyes (May 15, 2015)

It's a subjective method, like any other when used for typing. I think visual typing is OK, if you want to start off with vibes. Then again, it's difficult to deduce a person's mental process and core motivations just by looking at pictures of them. Unless if you're extremely skilled in that area. But I think further observation and interaction with the person is needed to get an accurate picture.

So, I wouldn't solely rely on visual typing whether you're determining a person's MBTI or Enneagram.


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

Sun Daeva said:


> I see a lot of pushing forward and holding back in your pictures. A tendency to want to reach out to the world and enjoy freedom, yet also a great deal of hesitation that tends to stop you in your tracks.
> These photos show a strong desire for the new and exciting, and yet also a questioning of reality. Wanting to go forward but being unsure of the steps to take. Go and stop, go and stop.
> 
> This quality might also come through in how you approach people: you either tend to stay quiet, holding back from giving too much away, or you become highly enthused and spirited. It's hard to find the medium.
> ...


Have you ever considered a career in fortune telling or mysticism? I feel positively uplifted.  I've got to hand it to you--other people who know me in real life have said the same thing, although perhaps less poetically. Thank you.

(Side note: All of that is why I mistyped as an ENFP for the past four years.)

I'd be lying if I said that I didn't put a bit of thought into which pictures I chose for my post. I was trying to illustrate the dual sides of my personality to see if you would pick up on them. And you did! I'd be curious as to what would happen if I posted five candid shots that I didn't particularly like. (I maintain that I would come across as an awkward, insane 7.)


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

throughtheroses said:


> Have you ever considered a career in fortune telling or mysticism? I feel positively uplifted.  I've got to hand it to you--other people who know me in real life have said the same thing, although perhaps less poetically. Thank you.


Hah! I'll think about it 
I'm glad that my words made you feel this way, as I'm always a bit shy to talk about my impression of people.



> (Side note: All of that is why I mistyped as an ENFP for the past four years.)
> 
> I'd be lying if I said that I didn't put a bit of thought into which pictures I chose for my post. I was trying to illustrate the dual sides of my personality to see if you would pick up on them. And you did! I'd be curious as to what would happen if I posted five candid shots that I didn't particularly like. (I maintain that I would come across as an awkward, insane 7.)


Yeah, I'm not saying people shouldn't be skeptical of this method either, I sure as hell can make huge mistakes taking this approach too. - I'm always learning still.
And of course, the more variety there is in the pictures shown (or any information at all really), the more we can 'get a read on' people from different angles, literally and figuratively.


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

@Sun Daeva

If you had to guess about my Enneagram types from the pictures (disregarding my signature, of course), what would you say I come across as?


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

Sorry I didn't realize this wasn't posted in the MBTI forum and that by appearance you meant only a picture. 

I don't know much about the enneagram, but for MBTI I can go off of "appearance" as in how they appear to be - sometimes they don't even have to say much, just their _presence _can tell me their potential type. A lot of these people are INFP (often 4s on the enneagram). 

I can easily tell Ne-doms because they are very energizing to be around and ENFP makes me laugh quite easily. I also have _impressions _of others types - the more people I know well of a specific type the more easily I can recognize more of the same type by just first impressions (not necessarily just the first, but "on the surface" I guess) because I can sense the person underneath.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

It's not an approach I place much stock in, if any. I think it's easy to see someone's general moods and emotions on their appearance, but you don't really get to see the WHY behind it all. What really motivates their actions and feelings and behaviors and tones. Without the "why", I don't think you can get at the true essence of the person. Sometimes, with obvious and stereotypical exemplars of the type, I can see how their mentality might shine through their appearance. But more often than not, this is not the case, and someone with a naturally downturned and drooping face might very well turn out to be a 7, for example.

I would be interested in seeing if anyone actually manages to compile an accurate list of appearances for each type -- and by accurate, I mean reproducible and verifiable. If someone actually discovers a legitimate pattern like that, that would be cool. But so far I don't think it exists, because the most we get are impressions, which can easily be misleading and don't give us an idea of what someone truly feels.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

First off, I believe people will initially type by appearance (whether consciously or unconsciously). I think it's just human nature to do so. The saying "don't judge a book by its cover" is there to remind people to be careful of how much weight they give that first impression and to verify whether that impression has any validity.

Here are some problems I see with typing by appearance and more particularly snapshot.

It's projection pure and simple. What you feel or think is being projected on the person as if they're feeling or thinking it. That comes from "your" past experiences with other people.
The cues people give off don't mean the same thing for everyone. You may know someone who has a particular facial expression or body posture that you've learned over time means a certain thing. That same facial expression or posture may mean something quite different for someone else who has it. You have to recalibrate for each individual otherwise you're not really seeing that person as they are but in terms of someone else you knew.
You have to consider context and situation as well. What's going on in that particular person's life at that time, in that moment? I remember seeing a YouTube video that showed pictures of people the moment before they died. One was taken by a serial murderer of the victim just before he killed her. There's no way to know that unless someone told you that about the picture. If you're not aware of the context, are you going to see fear in her face and assume she's a type 6?
People often "pose" for the camera. They're showing the camera or anticipated audience or those nearby what they want to convey in that moment. Is that indicative of their personality or simply some communication they're trying to convey?
As @*Night Huntress* mentioned in the post above, Enneagram type is not about what is presented but the why behind it. Two people can present in a very similar way but the why behind that can be quite different.

I say go ahead and look at that impression. You're going to have it. Just don't let it get in the way of letting that person be themselves and show you who they really are.


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

I like trying type by vibe in a live setting, but still pictures are really, really iffy material.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

throughtheroses said:


> @*Sun Daeva*
> 
> If you had to guess about my Enneagram types from the pictures (disregarding my signature, of course), what would you say I come across as?


Based on what I gathered from your pictures, I'd look into 6w7 for you. The duality between curiosity and skepticism, the child and the daredevil, the "go-and-stop", these tend to be strongly represented by this type. Of course, this isn't by any means a final conclusion on your typing. It is, after all, a translation from my interpretation of your pictures to the Enneagram. Much can get lost in the process. But it's worth exploring nonetheless


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

Sun Daeva said:


> Based on what I gathered from your pictures, I'd look into 6w7 for you. The duality between curiosity and skepticism, the child and the daredevil, the "go-and-stop", these tend to be strongly represented by this type. Of course, this isn't by any means a final conclusion on your typing. It is, after all, a translation from my interpretation of your pictures to the Enneagram. Much can get lost in the process. But it's worth exploring nonetheless


This just goes to show that you can't type people based on their appearances. :tongue: Trust me, I'm a 479 through and through. I know several 6s in real life and I can assure you that I'm not one of them. I think the push-pull of my personality comes from my being a 4w3-7w6 type.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

throughtheroses said:


> @*Animal* @*Sun Daeva*
> 
> Hello to the both of you! I just wanted to make it clear that I am in no way upset with either of you. I don't think that anyone was mistyping me, and I understand that it was all a thoughtful exercise. I know this because I requested it! Thank you, @*Sun Daeva* , for participating and humoring me. I really do appreciate it and I don't think you're trying to convince me that I'm really a 6w7. It's fascinating to hear both of your takes on everything, so thank you both for contributing to this thread.
> 
> ...


I have nothing to defend... I was just confused. But thank you for clarifying. 


To add to the pile of my opinions on this thread ---


Anything you show someone about yourself is more information.

- The fact that you started this thread says something about you.
- Your choice of an avatar and signature says something about you.
- Your assessment of your own type says something about you.
- Your photos say something about you.
- Your feeling I was "defensive" says something about you.
- Your telling me to "just ask your best friend" about your type says something about you.
- Your being so touched by his description of you says something about you.
- Your clearing this conversation up to make sure there are no hard feelings or misunderstandings says something about you.
- The posts you chose to thank on this thread vs. the ones you didn't thank, says something about you.
- The photos you chose to post says something about you.
- Your certainty about your type says something about you.
- Your choice of words says something about you.

And so on.

Then there is the other side.

- The things I list here says something about me.
- The way I interpret "what these things mean" says something about me.
- The posts I thank or don't thank says something about me.


My interpretation of what these things say about you is subjective.
Your interpretation of what my posts, pictures or anything else would say about me is subjective.


But no matter how many ways we spin this, photos are _more information_. More information gives a better picture of a person than less information.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't see how projecting onto appearances is any different than projecting their deepest motivations inside their soul. At least appearances can be seen. The inside of a person's head cannot. His point of view cannot be seen. Only an outside one.


How about if you just ask the person what their experience is instead of projecting your interpretation of them upon them. If you can't ask then explore what they've said without cherry picking only what will support your interpretation. 

Any approach of someone looking at me from the outside who doesn't know me then telling me who I am is absurd and I'm honestly surprised when anyone is OK with that sort of approach. I don't want it done to me so why would I think it's OK to do it to someone else.


----------



## BelladonnaPoe (May 26, 2016)

I have something else to throw onto the pile in this thread, and @throughtheroses will recognize this story very well.

In high school, there was this one girl, Emily (for a name's sake in this post), that both of us knew (we thought) very well. We saw her everyday, talked to her, hung out with her. We definitely thought we knew her; we even deluded ourselves into thinking we were friends with her. And she did everything she could to make sure of that too. She had a seemingly fabulous, yet tragic life, what with her boyfriend dying from cancer and all of these amazing cousins from Russia. Emily even claimed to have a close personal relationship with the famous Captain Sig from Deadliest Catch and his two daughters. I'm sure anyone can see where this is going. 

Turns out it was all fake. Every single piece of it. And we only found out after she attempted suicide and were trying to contact these fake people. We felt very stupid after that.

Anyway, the main point of that rather depressing story was to illustrate the point that people _lie_. It doesn't matter if you spend years with someone or just seconds looking at a picture of them, you can't truly know them unless they are honest, with you and themselves. Emily lied so much that she thought they were the truth. 

How do you type someone like that? How do you type someone that will always do their best to just lie to everyone and themselves? You can't. And you certainly can't type them based on their pictures either.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

BelladonnaPoe said:


> How do you type someone like that? How do you type someone that will always do their best to just lie to everyone and themselves? You can't. And you certainly can't type them based on their pictures either.


This is actually a great argument for why pictures or body language typing has MORE merit than words. People lie - not only on purpose, but people also lie to themselves without even realizing it. Words are misleading. What you can't FAKE is your body language. Sure, people can learn to act. So in that sense, people can convey something in a handful of pictures on purpose. But, learning to read the subtle nuances of body language is a process. You learn to see through that. 

My parents are both psychiatrists. Body language is crucial for them understanding the truth about their patients. They see the craziest people out there - some of whom lie, and some of whom don't know what's real. How do they figure them out? Body language.

And that is something you can't fake on a continuous basis. Even actors have to do multiple takes to get the perfect shot. And when you see them in interviews, they slip right back into their own body language.

This is why someone's self-reporting can, in some cases, have less merit than what their body gives away, unbeknownst to them. Although I do also pay attention to what people say. Like I said before, information is information, so discounting some of it is only remaining willfully ignorant. But, all psychology studies agree that a large (maybe 93% ) percentage of communication is through body language rather than words. Admittedly body language irl is different than "5 photos," but still. It is widely agreed in the psychology community that body language is _most essential_ to reading someone's character, and their true intentions, no matter how many lies they tell.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

throughtheroses said:


> Have you ever considered a career in fortune telling or mysticism? I feel positively uplifted.  I've got to hand it to you--other people who know me in real life have said the same thing, although perhaps less poetically. Thank you.
> 
> (Side note: All of that is why I mistyped as an ENFP for the past four years.)
> 
> I'd be lying if I said that I didn't put a bit of thought into which pictures I chose for my post. I was trying to illustrate the dual sides of my personality to see if you would pick up on them. And you did! I'd be curious as to what would happen if I posted five candid shots that I didn't particularly like. (I maintain that I would come across as an awkward, insane 7.)


Have you heard of the Barnum effect?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

mistakenforstranger said:


> Have you heard of the Barnum effect?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect


Do you fit the description I gave her?


----------



## throughtheroses (May 25, 2016)

mistakenforstranger said:


> Have you heard of the Barnum effect?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect


Yes, I have. I still feel uplifted, though. :kitteh: It may be subjective validation, but this specific example is still accurate enough for me.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

throughtheroses said:


> Yes, I have. I still feel uplifted, though. :kitteh: It may be subjective validation, but this specific example is still accurate enough for me.


Yes - your type aside, that description was, indeed, pretty specific. The things he described would not apply to me, to him, or to my brother who is actually a 6. (That doesn't mean you and I are not the same type though!! so I am not commenting on your type by saying that - plus we have different tritypes anyway, etc.. I am just commenting on _your _personal vibe.)

It was definitely not a one-size-fits-all description. I saw your pictures too and I could totally see where he was coming from.

nice try though, @*mistakenforstranger* :wink:


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> But no matter how many ways we spin this, photos are _more information_. More information gives a better picture of a person than less information.


Maybe. But more information can also create a greater misinterpretation of a person (especially if the information is vague, unreliable, or not a good representation of the person). I don't think all information is equal and some types of information are more vulnerable to misinterpretation than other types of information. 

Also, I don't see everything someone does or says as a reflection of who they are. That may be a tendency of your type 4 focus to see things that way. 

I want to add this about your other posts on body language. I agree with you to some extent. If you take body language as a form of communication then it can be very useful if you can get a good read on it. The idea that 70%, 80% or whatever percentage of communication doesn't have to do with what you say but how you say it is true I believe. 

However, I think this communication comes from interactions between people and not some snapshot in time within an unknown context. In other words, I find body language is one thing and interpreting a picture is something quite different. You seem to be equating the two in your posts though and I'm not sure why. To be clear, I think body language and meta communication can be very useful but I don't find typing someone through photos useful.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> In other words, I find body language is one thing and interpreting a picture is something quite different. You seem to be equating the two in your posts though and I'm not sure why.


Actually I mentioned this several times over the course of my posts in this thread - that a handful of pictures is not the same thing as someone's body language in person. If you look back - I basically said this exact same thing myself in almost every post. 



> If you take body language as a form of communication then it can be very useful if you can get a good read on it.


I don't see any "if" about it - body language is a form of communication, any way you slice it. Getting a good read on it will depend on how someone operates. It can also improve with training and studying.



> Also, I don't see everything someone does or says as a reflection of who they are. That may be a tendency of your type 4 focus to see things that way.


Hm that is interesting. If it's not a reflection of who they are, what is it a reflection of?


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> Maybe. But more information can also create a greater misinterpretation of a person (especially if the information is vague, unreliable, or not a good representation of the person). I don't think all information is equal and some types of information are more vulnerable to misinterpretation than other types of information.
> 
> Also, I don't see everything someone does or says as a reflection of who they are. That may be a tendency of your type 4 focus to see things that way.


Where do you draw the line then? What's the criteria of what one should consider a "good" representation of a person? 

Ultimately, the interpreter will decide the importance of the information given. Hence, their read of this person will be biased towards that type of information given.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> Where do you draw the line then? What's the criteria of what one should consider a "good" representation of a person?
> 
> *Ultimately, the interpreter will decide the importance of the information given*. Hence, their read of this person will be biased towards that type of information given.


This is exactly right, which only serves to further the assertion that typing based on appearance isn't very accurate. Every interpretation will be subjective and no better than a guess. Do we make good guesses sometimes? Sure. But when you really think about it, enneagram material is subject to personal interpretation as well. So basically, you're advocating for guessing another person's type based on what you pick up on in their photos AND based on your own personal unique understanding of the enneagram. If you think you make good judgments of people this way and that it helps in your personal life, I respect that. But I'm curious as to how judging people in this way helps you personally.


----------



## Amelia (Aug 23, 2015)

I want to say yes, but each type is so diverse in so many ways. ANY person of any appearance can be a certain type, even if they don't appear to be that type at first.

However, it is mentally satisfying to see someone stereotypically fit their type so well. It makes them seem easier to figure out.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> This is exactly right, which only serves to further the assertion that typing based on appearance isn't very accurate. Every interpretation will be subjective and no better than a guess. Do we make good guesses sometimes? Sure. But when you really think about it, enneagram material is subject to personal interpretation as well. So basically, you're advocating for guessing another person's type based on what you pick up on in their photos AND based on your own personal unique understanding of the enneagram. If you think you make good judgments of people this way and that it helps in your personal life, I respect that. But I'm curious as to how judging people in this way helps you personally.


I wonder what makes you think that typing people equals judging them?


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> I wonder what makes you think that typing people equals judging them?


You're drawing conclusions about who they are. You're making a judgment of their character based on what you see in the photos. It doesn't mean you're a terrible person by any stretch of the mind. I'm not thinking of judgment in that type of light here. Judgment, much like manipulation, gets a bad rep. We all make judgments, and like manipulation, sometimes it serves a positive purpose in our lives, and sometimes it doesn't serve a constructive purpose at all. I'm not asking you to answer to me, by the way. I did express curiosity about the answer, and I am curious, but it's ultimately a question each person should answer for himself. I think it is an aspect of ourselves the we each need to contemplate. We all do it. But why do we do it? What purpose does it serve? Has it hindered us in some ways? Has it made us better in some ways? It's something to think about.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> You're drawing conclusions about who they are. You're making a judgment of their character based on what you see in the photos. It doesn't mean you're a terrible person by any stretch of the mind. I'm not thinking of judgment in that type of light here. Judgment, much like manipulation, gets a bad rep. We all make judgments, and like manipulation, sometimes it serves a positive purpose in our lives, and sometimes it doesn't serve a constructive purpose at all. I'm not asking you to answer to me, by the way. I did express curiosity about the answer, and I am curious, but it's ultimately a question each person should answer for himself. I think it is an aspect of ourselves the we each need to contemplate. We all do it. But why do we do it? What purpose does it serve? Has it hindered us in some ways? Has it made us better in some ways?


I think you might be confusing _assessment _with _judgment_.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> I think you might be confusing _assessment _with _judgment_.


Perhaps so. Use any word you like! Use the word_ assessment_ in place of the word _judgment_ and ask yourself the same questions. Of course, you don't have to... just a suggestion. It couldn't hurt though, right?


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> Perhaps so. Use any word you like! Use the word_ assessment_ in place of the word _judgment_ and ask yourself the same questions. Of course, you don't have to... just a suggestion. It couldn't hurt though, right?


Assessing someone's type includes acknowledging the entire spectrum of the ways in which one can go wrong, or go right. It's a neutral evaluation of potential.

I don't equate this with the term _judging_​, so yes, I will use a different word for it.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> Assessing someone's type includes acknowledging the entire spectrum of the ways in which one can go wrong, or go right. It's a neutral evaluation of potential.
> 
> I don't equate this with the term _judging_​, so yes, I will use a different word for it.


For what it's worth, they are synonyms. Whatever makes you feel better though


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> Actually I mentioned this several times over the course of my posts in this thread - that a handful of pictures is not the same thing as someone's body language in person. If you look back - I basically said this exact same thing myself in almost every post.


Well, that wasn't how it was coming across to me. It was coming across to me that you were defending body language as being valid when I didn't really see anyone invalidate that (I know for sure that I didn't). You seemed to be lumping it in with picture typing or appearance in your responses. If I misinterpreted that then you've corrected it.



Animal said:


> Hm that is interesting. If it's not a reflection of who they are, what is it a reflection of?


I'll use some of your bullets from your post to provide examples of how I just don't see everything I do as a reflection of who I am.

- The fact that you started this thread says something about you.
_I usually start a thread just to help resolve a question I have or understand others._
- Your choice of an avatar and signature says something about you.
_I don't have either because I don't want people to make too much out of it._
- Your assessment of your own type says something about you.
_I don't focus much on my own type. I focus on the other types mostly so I can better understand how others operate._
- Your photos say something about you.
_If I'm posing to express something about myself maybe (which I don't ever remember actually doing). Usually they're just social/professional requirements I'm getting out of the way or snapshots in time and place that someone captured while I was at an event.
_
I think type 4 can easily blow things out of proportion in seeing too many things as some reflection of who they are. I think it's part of the fixation of type 4. Other types may simply look at type 4 doing that and wonder why, sometimes seeing it as being too self-absorbed or such.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

@Ace Face

If I may...

Everyone assesses constantly. Whether it be through the lens of enneagram or not. Enneagram puts words to a spectrum of potential, as @Sun Daeva phrased it - it gives a language through which we can communicate these ideas about people. And of course, we all debate the meanings of types, our interpretation of celebrities, ourselves or each other through this lens, etc - because we all have subjective understanding of enneagram as well as people. And that's the beauty of having an enneagram forum. If it were as easy as 2 + 2 = 4, then there would be nothing to talk about. 

But even before any of us learned enneagram, we were assessing people's character, what their potentials are, what they're about. Do you think we should ask ourselves why? Should we stop observing things altogether? It's perfectly human to organize the mind by assigning categories to things and making associations, whether or not those categories are even in words. It would be unrealistic to expect anyone to NOT get some impression of someone else. So what is the harm in discussing that impression?


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> For what it's worth, they are synonyms. Whatever makes you feel better though


Sure, ignore what I wrote. Whatever makes you feel better though.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> Sure, ignore what I wrote. Whatever makes you feel better though.


I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. What did I ignore?


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Well, that wasn't how it was coming across to me. It was coming across to me that you were defending body language as being valid when I didn't really see anyone invalidate that (I know for sure that I didn't). You seemed to be lumping it in with picture typing or appearance in your responses. If I misinterpreted that then you've corrected it.


I definitely said several times that a handful of pictures is not going to give us the same impression as body language in person. Sorry if it wasn't clear, but hopefully that is cleared up now. 



> I'll use some of your bullets from your post to provide examples of how I just don't see everything I do as a reflection of who I am.
> 
> _I usually start a thread just to help resolve a question I have or understand others._
> 
> ...



^ You just responded to each of these things explaining why you do them or don't do them, which is basically explaining how these things are a reflection of who you are. How does this disprove my point?



> I think type 4 can easily blow things out of proportion in seeing too many things as some reflection of who they are. I think it's part of the fixation of type 4. Other types may simply look at type 4 doing that and wonder why, sometimes seeing it as being too self-absorbed or such.


Hm.. what I do blow out of proportion is my own self-assessment. The self absorption is more about my own self-image. I don't think I blow things about other people out of proportion - in fact I don't spend that much time thinking about other people because I am, indeed, self absorbed. :bored:


But I don't think that perceiving body language, and finding meaning in it, is blowing anything out of proportion. You haven't even heard how I interpret anyone's specific body language. So you can't really know if I'm blowing it out of proportion or not, can you?

Also, enneagram wise (if we are going to make this about type), wouldn't head-types be the ones who "think to the point of overthinking" and thus blow information out of proportion? I don't see how that is related to 4. I'll readily admit my faults - you've seen me do it in other threads - but I am not convinced that this is one of them. Willing to be wrong though, if you can make a case for how I am blowing anything specific out of proportion. I always like to question my assumptions or have my perceptions challenged, so if I am indeed doing that, I want to know.



Sorry I edited a few times @enneathusiast


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. What did I ignore?


The entirety of my previous post. I'll quote it for you.



Sun Daeva said:


> *Assessing someone's type includes acknowledging the entire spectrum of the ways in which one can go wrong, or go right. It's a neutral evaluation of potential.*
> 
> I don't equate this with the term _judging_​, so yes, I will use a different word for it.


Your focus seems to be stuck on a value-judgment of types. The process of typing does not require any of that, except on the part of the one _being_ typed, as it is their deepest wounds and strengths that get uncovered.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Animal said:


> @*Ace Face*
> 
> If I may...
> 
> Everyone assesses constantly. Whether it be through the lens of enneagram or not. Enneagram puts words to a spectrum of potential, as @*Sun Daeva* phrased it - it gives a language through which we can communicate these ideas about people. And of course, we all debate the meanings of types, our interpretation of celebrities, ourselves or each other through this lens, etc - because we all have subjective understanding of enneagram as well as people. And that's the beauty of having an enneagram forum. If it were as easy as 2 + 2 = 4, then there would be nothing to talk about.


Agreed! 



> But even before any of us learned enneagram, we were assessing people's character, what their potentials are, what they're about.


Yes, we did!



> Do you think we should ask ourselves why?


I think it's definitely a good thing to think through. It's a chance for a personal assessment of my own motivations. Reflection at its finest. Why pass up the opportunity for growth?



> Should we stop observing things altogether? It's perfectly human to organize the mind by assigning categories to things and making associations, whether or not those categories are even in words. It would be unrealistic to expect anyone to NOT get some impression of someone else.


Completely agreed.



> So what is the harm in discussing that impression?


A great question! I think more than enough harm comes from discussing impressions. Does every conversation about impressions turn south? Of course not. But why bother wasting time assessing people in the first place? It's more than just putting people in categories. What are you looking for? There really are so many questions to ask, and if improving oneself is truly a priority, I don't see the problem in asking them.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> A great question! I think more than enough harm comes from discussing impressions. Does every conversation about impressions turn south? Of course not. But why bother wasting time assessing people in the first place? It's more than just putting people in categories. What are you looking for? There really are so many questions to ask, and if improving oneself is truly a priority, I don't see the problem in asking them.


If you're not interested in discussing impressions of people and/or types, why do you keep on posting on a personality forum?


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> The entirety of my previous post. I'll quote it for you.
> 
> Your focus seems to be stuck on a value-judgment of types. The process of typing does not require any of that, except on the part of the one _being_ typed, as it is their deepest wounds and strengths that get uncovered.


I see what you're saying now, but I don't agree. We have different interpretations of what it means to type people. Typing others in its very nature means you're making a judgment/assessment. Just because you don't give a shit or have a deep-seated belief about someone else's typing doesn't mean that you've still not made a judgment/assessment.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> If you're not interested in discussing impressions of people and/or types, why do you keep on posting on a personality forum?


It's simple. I am interested. The fact that I don't see things through the same lens as you doesn't mean I'm not interested.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Sun Daeva said:


> Where do you draw the line then? What's the criteria of what one should consider a "good" representation of a person?


For me it's that which comes directly from the person and not taken out of context. I'll give you some examples.

I have little use for biographies or third party interpretation of someone else's experience. I'd prefer something autobiographical. I'm not looking for facts but for how that person processes and experiences their reality.

Interview videos where the person is talking more openly and honestly about their experiences and approaches to life. It's mostly worthless if they're just there to promote a product or themselves as on the popular talk shows or it's playing to the audience or camera for entertainment purposes. Abbreviated clips are often taken out of the context of the larger interview and easily lead to misinterpretation because you're only going on partial information.

The two problems I have with pictures are: 1) I generally don't know the context of the picture (i.e., is it promotional, is it a performance, is it staged, is it rehearsed, is it in response to a situation, etc.) and 2) it's too short to really grasp anything about the person - it's just a single moment in time. If you could know a person by just looking at their picture then Internet dating would be a breeze. Just look through the many pictures on the website and find your ideal mate. It just doesn't work that way. It takes more than a frozen moment in time to "get" someone. 

Letters, diaries, etc. where they're expressing themselves can be useful as well. Anything where the person is basically speaking to me in some manner (not me speaking for them). The less I have to interpret and fill in the blanks the better. Because when I fill in the blanks I'm replacing the actual person with my projections about that person (and often not aware that I'm even doing it).


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I see what you're saying now, but I don't agree. We have different interpretations of what it means to type people. Typing others in its very nature means you're making a judgment/assessment. Just because you don't give a shit or have a deep-seated belief about someone else's typing doesn't mean that you've still not made a judgment/assessment.


Fair enough. You and I probably have a different approach in how we see and type (and assess/judge) people. I'm not terribly invested in seeing right or wrong, or good or bad, in the world.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> A great question! *I think more than enough harm comes from discussing impressions. * Does every conversation about impressions turn south? Of course not. But why bother wasting time assessing people in the first place? It's more than just putting people in categories. What are you looking for? There really are so many questions to ask, and if improving oneself is truly a priority, I don't see the problem in asking them.





Ace Face said:


> It's simple. I am interested. The fact that I don't see things through the same lens as you doesn't mean I'm not interested.


I've only seen you post negative views lately on even just _using _the Enneagram. Something about you saying "I am interested (in discussing impressions)" doesn't make sense with that. If you are interested in discussing impressions, then why not just... do exactly that?


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> I've only seen you post negative views lately on even just _using _the Enneagram. Something about you saying "I am interested (in discussing impressions)" doesn't make sense with that. If you are interested in discussing impressions, then why not just... do exactly that?


I have my opinion of the enneagram for sure, and I enjoy expressing that opinion whether or not it align with other people's experiences. You and I did discuss impressions. Perhaps it wasn't the most pleasant exchange, but I thought valid points were made on both sides, for sure. I have plenty of stuff to chew on as a result of the exchange, and I'm glad it happened.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Ace Face said:


> I think it's definitely a good thing to think through. It's a chance for a personal assessment of my own motivations. Reflection at its finest. Why pass up the opportunity for growth?


Yeah, I see what you're saying here. Asking why we do ANYTHING is definitely good. It's nice to be self-aware. I tend to ask myself questions like this a lot. But I guess what I meant is, I don't see the point in placing a negative judgment on the act of categorization. Of course, if the categories are narrow, dehumanizing, lacking in nuance, etc, it can be a harmful practice. 

I guess a good question to ask would be, where would be the most productive use of attention and questioning? For instance, if we spend too much time thinking about why the rug is called "brown" - and do this with every last thing in life - we'll go insane. Some things just need to be taken for granted eventually, so we can move on to something more productive. The question would be, are our methods of categorization productive or unproductive? Limiting or expanding our mind? Helping or hurting others? Etc. 





> A great question! I think more than enough harm comes from discussing impressions. Does every conversation about impressions turn south? Of course not. But why bother wasting time assessing people in the first place? It's more than just putting people in categories. What are you looking for? There really are so many questions to ask, and if improving oneself is truly a priority, I don't see the problem in asking them.


It's all about context and nuances. Again - it's not simply "putting people in categories" - enneagram would ideally be a tool for self improvement. What is your interest in enneagram? And if you find merit in it - how do you expect to make use of that merit without categories? Isn't that what enneagram is - a system of categories which help people to understand their own biases and others' , etc? How could we do that if we discard the categories (types)? How is it useful at all?


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

@*Ace Face*

(PerC won't let me quote your post directly for some reason lol :dry: )

I don't exactly count that exchange as discussing our impression of the different types, but regardless, I too enjoyed that convo big time.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Animal said:


> Yeah, I see what you're saying here. Asking why we do ANYTHING is definitely good. It's nice to be self-aware. I tend to ask myself questions like this a lot. But I guess what I meant is, I don't see the point in placing a negative judgment on the act of categorization. Of course, if the categories are narrow, dehumanizing, lacking in nuance, etc, it can be a harmful practice.
> 
> I guess a good question to ask would be, where would be the most productive use of attention and questioning? For instance, if we spend too much time thinking about why the rug is called "brown" - and do this with every last thing in life - we'll go insane. Some things just need to be taken for granted eventually, so we can move on to something more productive. The question would be, are our methods of categorization productive or unproductive? Limiting or expanding our mind? Helping or hurting others? Etc.


Very thought-provoking!




> It's all about context and nuances. Again - it's not simply "putting people in categories" - enneagram would ideally be a tool for self improvement. What is your interest in enneagram?


Self-improvement, reflection, exploration, growth, entertainment. 



> And if you find merit in it - how do you expect to make use of that merit without categories? Isn't that what enneagram is - a system of categories which help people to understand their own biases and others' , etc? How could we do that if we discard the categories (types)? How is it useful at all?


I completely understand your point. Most people do use the enneagram this way. I used to. I no longer use it in this same manner, but that doesn't mean it's not still serving a purpose. I do find the labels/categories useless, but not the people, the motivations, the fears, the virtues, etc. I still benefit from reading the enneagram despite the fact that I'm not actively attempting to shove myself in one of the nine boxes. I don't have to have a label or give other people labels to achieve what I'd like to achieve.


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Sun Daeva said:


> @*Ace Face*
> 
> (PerC won't let me quote your post directly for some reason lol :dry: )
> 
> I don't exactly count that exchange as discussing our impression of the different types, but regardless, I too enjoyed that convo big time.


I thought the purpose of the thread was to discuss typing others by appearance. If you'd like to talk impression of types, we certainly can. It's not as if I've forgotten my old ways of applying the enneagram


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

Ace Face said:


> Very thought-provoking!


Glad 

I was reading a book about the mind.. the reasoning mind and the automatic mind... some time back. It delves into topics like this and how to use the mind most productively. The automatic mind must exist or else we would overthink ourselves to insanity, but the reasoning mind needs to question that automatic mind in some ways and make sure it's working toward the most productive ends. ;P



> Self-improvement, reflection, exploration, growth, entertainment.


Fair enough, pretty much why I use it too.  Add in , understanding others...



> I completely understand your point. Most people do use the enneagram this way. I used to. I no longer use it in this same manner, but that doesn't mean it's not still serving a purpose. I do find the labels/categories useless, but not the people, the motivations, the fears, the virtues, etc. I still benefit from reading the enneagram despite the fact that I'm not actively attempting to shove myself in one of the nine boxes. I don't have to have a label or give other people labels to achieve what I'd like to achieve.


Yeah I see. You're on a different enneagram train now. The thing is - I completely respect that. But some of us still find merit in typing ourselves and growing that way, and receiving input on it. There will, of course, be conflicts when people ask to be typed and then disagree with the answers. There will be conflicts when people don't agree about what a type means. But that's ok - it's a challenge. A mind exercise. Of course I would be the first to be angry and jump in to stop that shit if people were picking apart someone's sensitive posts like vultures and overlooking their vulnerability just to slap a number on them. But there are many people here who still grow from identifying their types and discussing why, or hearing other input. So, as long as we both know that we're doing something different but neither is evil or cruel or deliberately hurtful - it's all good


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Ace Face said:


> I thought the purpose of the thread was to discuss typing others by appearance. If you'd like to talk impression of types, we certainly can. It's not as if I've forgotten my old ways of applying the enneagram


I wasn't limiting my view on your posts to this thread only...


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

Animal said:


> Glad
> 
> I was reading a book about the mind.. the reasoning mind and the automatic mind... some time back. It delves into topics like this and how to use the mind most productively. The automatic mind must exist or else we would overthink ourselves to insanity, but the reasoning mind needs to question that automatic mind in some ways and make sure it's working toward the most productive ends. ;P


Ooooooo. Which book?? I want this book!




> Fair enough, pretty much why I use it too.  Add in , understanding others...


Word!



> Yeah I see. You're on a different enneagram train now. The thing is - I completely respect that. But some of us still find merit in typing ourselves and growing that way, and receiving input on it. There will, of course, be conflicts when people ask to be typed and then disagree with the answers. There will be conflicts when people don't agree about what a type means. But that's ok - it's a challenge. A mind exercise. Of course I would be the first to be angry and jump in to stop that shit if people were picking apart someone's sensitive posts like vultures and overlooking their vulnerability just to slap a number on them. But there are many people here who still grow from identifying their types and discussing why, or hearing other input. So, as long as we both know that we're doing something different but neither is evil or cruel or deliberately hurtful - it's all good


Completely agreed!


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Appearance can also be represented through social media. Since social media usage is an increasing norm in this generation, observing what a person reveals publicly and privately on social media channels, such as Facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc can also be very insightful for deducing their ideal-image, self-image, enneagram type, as well as instinctual subtype. A SO-dom behavior is sharing humanitarian interests, raising social awareness, or liking various causes/rights.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> Seems a bit of a contradiction with your current typing;-)


I am not writing this to make a case for my husband's type - I believe type should speak for itself and doesnt need to be defended... and also I am aware that you have encountered him on previous occasions, so your opinion on his type will be based on data outside this post. I am not going to contest that. I think you are a good, solid typer and have a good eye, so I would not demean your process by assuming you drew a conclusion from this one post (which was likely meant to be funny more than anything)....

But!!! I feel the need to address a misconception I see here about type 1.

Type 1 has a fear of being bad, corrupt, immoral, etc. So if the 1 believes it is wrong to be judgmental, he will try his best not to be. The specific moral code that a 1 develops is specific to the 1 - but it is actually very common for them to have ideas about not judging other people. They may have a million critiques in their heads but they may also feel it is wrong to say them aloud, so they hold it inside. This builds up resentment at all the wrongs they see but do not point out, which is what constitutes the sin of wrath. 

But their wrath and criticisms are directed at the self above all (with a 9 wing especially, and especially with social last in their stacking). So they would be especially critical of themselves for acting in a judgmental way, and would likely try to develop a strong differentiation between the act of "assessing" and "judging." 

My husbands type aside, I have seen this kind of nuanced process around their own judgments in several 1s, and it makes perfect sense with their core fear being "to be wrong, immoral, imperfect" etc. Of any type, a 1 would be most likely to fixate on whether they are being wrongly judgmental or not , yet still be unable to escape it.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

@Animal

This is all my opinion so take it as you like.

As you know, I see each of us having access to all nine types. What is generally described as "my type" is the dominant type that gets expressed in personality. The other types rarely make it to the surface because the dominant type tends to control the personality (that's the fixation). All the types are there in the background within the person. In other words, the dominant type can be seen by others in the personality but the other types are seen within by the individual and may not make it to the surface through personality.

IME, I see many people typing themselves as the types that only they can see, but that's not the dominant type or type influencing personality. A type experienced within but not expressed through personality only exists as an awareness within the individual. It's not the dominant influence upon personality. The dominant personality type or ego fixation lies elsewhere when this is so.


----------



## Animal (May 29, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> @*Animal*
> 
> This is all my opinion so take it as you like.
> 
> ...


That makes perfect sense to me. 

I guess I was more.. throwing out there what my experience of 1s has been like, although that is a separate thing from debating his self-typing. In my experience, most 1s might appear judgmental to others while also believing that they are "against" acting judgmental. So that particular post would not have been what I quoted in order to counter someone's self-typing at 1, though I recognize that you were being somewhat facetious AND you have probably assessed his type based on a broader scope of experience.


It did occur to me when he wrote the post though, that some people might perceive it as being ironic.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Animal said:


> In my experience, most 1s might appear judgmental to others while also believing that they are "against" acting judgmental.


IME, the attention is on noticing what is wrong and discerning what is right and then following through on that in whatever way the individual deems appropriate.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

Animal said:


> It did occur to me when he wrote the post though, that some people might perceive it as being ironic.


Maybe, just maybe, that might have been my intention.

But then again, maybe not.




enneathusiast said:


> IME, the attention is on noticing what is wrong and discerning what is right and then following through on that in whatever way the individual deems appropriate.



Agreed, but as you said yourself, one's type can be hard to see from the ego's position. Does the 1 believe that they are focusing on what's wrong?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Sun Daeva said:


> Agreed, but as you said yourself, one's type can be hard to see from the ego's position.


I didn't think I said that. I guess you're referring to when I said that it's hard NOT to see things from the type's focus and a tendency to assume everyone else sees it that way or should.



Sun Daeva said:


> Does the 1 believe that they are focusing on what's wrong?


Yes. How else would they know what needs to be corrected?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Sun Daeva said:


> Maybe, just maybe, that might have been my intention.
> 
> But then again, maybe not.


The slippery type. You're not going to nail me down.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> I didn't think I said that. I guess you're referring to when I said that it's hard NOT to see things from the type's focus and a tendency to assume everyone else see's it that way or should.


What would you make of my strong reaction against the term "judging" then?




> Yes. How else would they know what needs to be corrected?


And this is a conscious choice of course.



enneathusiast said:


> The slippery type. You're not going to nail me down.


You are very predictable, enneathusiast.

This is me making the point that you can't rely on people's self-reporting alone. I intended to sound 'slippery' and was curious for your response.
People lie. To themselves, to others. And taking their words at face value is even worse.

Body language is much, much harder to fake. And body language does come through in pictures.



.. This post does mean I'm a E6 right?


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Sun Daeva said:


> What would you make of my strong reaction against the term "judging" then?


I've noticed it in type 7 a lot as a response to the type 1 within. I see the dominant type in reaction to or in compensation for these other shadow types within.



Sun Daeva said:


> And this is a conscious choice of course.


For someone where type 1 is dominant, noticing what's not right is more automatic. It's hard not to notice what's wrong. Not really a choice when it's a fixation.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> I've noticed it in type 7 a lot as a response to the type 1 within. I see the dominant type in reaction to or in compensation for these other shadow types within.


Or maybe.. Reaction Formation.



> For someone where type 1 is dominant, noticing what's not right is more automatic. It's hard not to notice what's wrong. Not really a choice when it's a fixation.


I completely agree, but that's not what I was getting at. The mere fact that this is not an option but instead a fixation could mean a blindness to one's own compulsions. But that doesn't mean they're not there.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Sun Daeva said:


> Or maybe.. Reaction Formation.


Or rationalization or creating a new counter-type 1 or whatever you want to use to support an interpretation.



Sun Daeva said:


> I completely agree, but that's not what I was getting at. The mere fact that this is not an option but instead a fixation could mean a blindness to one's own compulsions. But that doesn't mean they're not there.


I see the right/wrong discernment as a focus or world view (as some authors call it). That's where the attention goes. That's primarily what the individual sees when it's obsessive or fixated. The compulsion develops in the behavior that responds to that. That will be unique for each individual. You can be blind to the motives behind those compulsions and blind to the fact that not everyone sees life that way but the focus is how you perceive things and structure your reality around that. It doesn't make sense to say someone is blind to what they're seeing. They may be blind to what they're not seeing because the focus doesn't take account of it or deems it unimportant or irrelevant.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> Or rationalization or creating a new counter-type 1 or whatever you want to use to support an interpretation.


Ironically enough, typing me at 7 might as well be creating a new counter-type of E7.

And I'm far from being a counter-type of 1.



> I see the right/wrong discernment as a focus or world view (as some authors call it). That's where the attention goes. That's primarily what the individual sees when it's obsessive or fixated. The compulsion develops in the behavior that responds to that. That will be unique for each individual. You can be blind to the motives behind those compulsions and blind to the fact that not everyone sees life that way but the focus is how you perceive things and structure your reality around that. It doesn't make sense to say someone is blind to what they're seeing. They may be blind to what they're not seeing because the focus doesn't take account of it or deems it unimportant or irrelevant.


Then I wonder why so many struggle with typing themselves accurately?

Being blind to one's compulsions is a thing. Look around the forum.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Sun Daeva said:


> Ironically enough, typing me at 7 might as well be creating a new counter-type of E7.
> 
> And I'm far from being a counter-type of 1.


Type yourself however you want. You asked a question or prompted a response and I answered it. I'm simply offering another perspective. Do with it what you will. I don't have any investment in the outcome.




Sun Daeva said:


> Then I wonder why so many struggle with typing themselves accurately?
> 
> Being blind to one's compulsions is a thing. Look around the forum.


I don't think you understood what I said. I made the distinction between obsession and compulsion (they are two different things that may or may not impact one another - just like type and personality). Obsession has to do with attentional focus. Compulsion has to do with behavioral response. People are not blind to their attentional focus (obsessive attention - in fact that's often all they can see) although they may very well be blind to their behavioral responses (behavioral compulsions) and the motives driving them. The traditional Enneagram type approach tends to only look at what you're calling compulsion and I'm calling behavioral response (what others likely lump into personality). When you take that approach, you're only seeing half of what I'm talking about. Hence my dilemma in trying to explain my approach to the Enneagram types.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

enneathusiast said:


> Type yourself however you want. You asked a question or prompted a response and I answered it. I'm simply offering another perspective. Do with it what you will. I don't have any investment in the outcome.


Hehe, I know. Just pulling your strings. (must be the 7 in me - but only as a fix of course...)



> I don't think you understood what I said. I made the distinction between obsession and compulsion (they are two different things that may or may not impact one another - just like type and personality). Obsession has to do with attentional focus. Compulsion has to do with behavioral response. People are not blind to their attentional focus (obsessive attention - in fact that's often all they can see) although they may very well be blind to their behavioral responses (behavioral compulsions) and the motives driving them. The traditional Enneagram type approach tends to only look at what you're calling compulsion and I'm calling behavioral response (what others likely lump into personality). When you take that approach, you're only seeing half of what I'm talking about. Hence my dilemma in trying to explain my approach to the Enneagram types.


People tell themselves stories to fit their fixation, to explain it away. Maybe that's the 7 in us all? Rationalization. We make it "ok" to see the world as we do. We may call it by different names: instead of "I'm scared" you can say "That situation/person is dangerous." Instead of "I'm angry" we may say "They are wrong and I will correct them." We may talk about not caring to judge the world, we may tell ourselves we're merely observing, but our actions speak louder.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Quang said:


> Appearance can also be represented through social media. Since social media usage is an increasing norm in this generation, observing what a person reveals publicly and privately on social media channels, such as Facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc can also be very insightful for deducing their ideal-image, self-image, enneagram type, as well as instinctual subtype. *A SO-dom behavior is sharing humanitarian interests, raising social awareness, or liking various causes/rights*.


Yes so much to the bolded. I have a couple of people on my Facebook that I am very sure are social doms and one thing that's striking about them is how they are so involved following politics and not just politics as in what goes on in the world, but they are forward with having opinions and being in the know-how when it comes to various think-tanks, political groups and affiliates and how those reflect norms and attitudes in society and how my friends in turn relate back to these. 

In comparison, I remember I had a friend who was the completely opposite of this. I think she's sp/sx or sx/sp. I remember that I interviewed her for one of my theses that I wrote when I was still attending university, and several questions related to how involved she was in community-building and being a part of the community that makes up the subculture that she identified with. So while she identified with a subculture, she had no interest in actually socializing and being a part of the subculture. She didn't join internet pages and followed them around in order to be up to date what's going on within the scene, she didn't try to affiliate herself with various artists or fans about what is going on and she wasn't interested in discussing her interests with other people really, despite being very passionate about the subject. It was a much more private deal for her and she didn't feel comfortable with expressing her opinions externally like that. Fwiw, I think she was a 4 but I am not sure since I never introduced her to the enneagram.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

Quang said:


> Appearance can also be represented through social media. Since social media usage is an increasing norm in this generation, observing what a person reveals publicly and privately on social media channels, such as Facebook, instagram, tumblr, etc can also be very insightful for deducing their ideal-image, self-image, enneagram type, as well as instinctual subtype. A SO-dom behavior is sharing humanitarian interests, raising social awareness, or liking various causes/rights.


I don't do this. I also know a (probable) so/sp that is very private online and you would never guess she is so-dom until you talk to her and she _constantly _references groups/stereotypes/cultures to even talk about one individual. Not that I don't have any such interests as what you have mentioned, it's just that a big part of the so-instinct in so/sx, imo, is channeled towards _finding a mate._ That is why I thought I was sx at first.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Any other trends that might indicate instincts?
I agree with the social one, not that every so-dom is going to post all the political links and such, but I know a lot who do, it's very clearly a....thing (I mean, the social instinct is clear with these posts...think I notice it especially because I don't really have a strong social instinct)

Though, I imagine _social_ media is mostly _social_ driven. Even just putting a lot of work into updating a page to give off a certain impression is a quite social thing to do imo.

(For instance I post mostly like pictures from if I meet someone, I see this as an attempt at social instinct and building up an image of someone who meets people, also in some case just wanting to share pictures or have them more permanently (like of my friend's baby)

And sometimes I share something I think is funny. Always want to hear that someone else thinks it's funny or something)) Or something stupid 'Nearly escaping being boiled alive'










Actually the only posts I've actually generated myself seem spider-related, my room is lousy with them

maybe sp or something

My so/sp 3 friend is extremely cautious about what she shares on social media, she once (no joke)

gave me a powerpoint with rules she'd formed for posting on social media, how often, who you should friend and not friend them, what kind of smileys to use, she made accounts to demonstrate these things on (we then turned it into a story)

For instance in this case Alexander was the good example, Sarah was the bad example (George was my character, this was added later, but he was also a bad example, obviously)

* *


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

Niha said:


> I don't do this. I also know a (probable) so/sp that is very private online and you would never guess she is so-dom until you talk to her and she _constantly _references groups/stereotypes/cultures to even talk about one individual. Not that I don't have any such interests as what you have mentioned, it's just that a big part of the so-instinct in so/sx, imo, is channeled towards _finding a mate._ That is why I thought I was sx at first.


Yes, there is also the scenario where people are very private about what they reveal on social media. If the person doesn't actively use Facebook, it doesn't matter what their instinctual subtype is (perhaps they support the anti-facebook movement!).

If so/sx is channeled towards finding a mate, then what is SX channeled towards? I understood SX-dom as connection, energy, and mate seeking


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

@*Quang*

reading about the stackings, both the sp last ones sound...I suppose very "energetic" or passionate, *and *there seems to be a lack of "stillness" or stability to both of them. 

This website does a pretty good job of explaining: Socionics - the16types.info - Instinctual Stackings

EDIT: I don't agree with all of it though.

I will make a separate post about this.


----------



## Rose for a Heart (Nov 14, 2011)

*So/sx*

*My comments
Accurate
Wrong

soc/sx
Motivation: to create lasting connections with those they are interested in - the "best friend."
This type has very strong one to one social skills, but is usually uncomfortable in group settings. They enjoy cultivating multiple relationships,** okay, so when it comes to making friends, I have always just let it happen. I don't go out of my way to "cultivate multiple relationships" - although maybe they are comparing to sx or sp first, in which case yeah I naturally like having a few close friends...but I thought this was everyone? and can be intensely involved when in the presence of someone they are interested in, but have difficulty sustaining these bonds when apart. **Not quite sure what this means. How do other variants maintain bonds when apart? Then I might have something to compare to in order to answer. This may give the impression of being flighty and rootless, willing to adapt and mirror others in order to connect, but lacking a defined approach that would give their relationships a more solid standing.** I had no idea I come across this way. As for mirroring, don't we all do this to a certain extent? ALL of my relationships are built on a "solid standing" lol, because I am very close to a few people instead of connecting with many. I am actually not that interested in forming acquaintances, and look for ways to deepen that relationship or lose interest entirely.  They may have political interests, but are generally more pragmatic and less partisan than the other social variant. **I only recently started feeling even a little bit political and that was because that issue was close to me/ felt like a part of me awakening (socially). To a large extent I actually have no interest in politics. Do I care about certain causes? Absolutely. But this has been very recent, and I attributed this initially to Fi-awakening (the point in your life you start realizing your values). They are often attuned to pop culture and the latest trends. **not so much

Expression: bright smiley, intense expression** I suppose so. I have had people comment "you have a really nice smile" and my dress sense/style is "bright." Yeah sometimes I feel awkward like I have a lot of energy pouring through that I try to conceal - but this anxiety is only around 1) meeting too many people for the first time and 2) initially interacting with a crush
Energy: outward energy expressed intensely, broadly ** I don't know lol. I would have to ask people who know me to answer some of these. 
Behavior: bright, smiley, erratic and scattered
Mindset: "If I can get close to people with merging/intensity, I can make sure of and keep improving my position and inclusion in the group/world." ** First part makes a lot of sense, I am not sure about the second part.
Blind spot: Likely to neglect their desire to seek intense connections and experiences for the sake of their primary concern of building their sense of personal value, accomplishment, and security of place with others, in average-healthy levels. May not have an awareness of the body's need for food or sleep, or of the need to accumulate wealth for reasons of security, or of the need to manage time or resources to establish an orderly lifestyle.
My blind spot resembles that of sx/so according to this website: Blind spot: Likely to neglect their desire to build their sense of personal value, accomplishment, and security of place with others for the sake of their primary concern of seeking intense connections and experiences, in average-healthy levels. May not have an awareness of the body's need for food or sleep, or of the need to accumulate wealth for reasons of security, or of the need to manage time or resources to establish an orderly lifestyle.
*


----------

