# Traits which are over-attributed to 2s



## DomNapoleon (Jan 21, 2012)

@Swordsman of Mana when will you do to type 7?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> @Swordsman of Mana when will you do to type 7?


huh?


----------



## DomNapoleon (Jan 21, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> huh?


I meant when will you do a thread of Traits which are over-attributed to 7s :frustrating:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Hybrid Shark Wolf said:


> I meant when will you do a thread of Traits which are over-attributed to 7s :frustrating:


as soon as I make sense of all the rampantly conflicting information presented by experts with regards to 7s. with 2s it was easier because _zero_ of the 2s I've met/observed are remotely similar to the BS "Helper" shtick presented by R and H. I also currently identify as a 7, so there is a lot of room for bias there.


----------



## o0india0o (Mar 17, 2015)

I'd say you nailed it.
But as I've mentioned before, I only know one, unhealthy, Type 2.

But I'd say this is accurate from my observations of said person.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Thymic said:


> The particular vice of pride comes in when one party derives significantly more ego-fulfillment from participating in the exchange, and can get dangerous when they manipulate others in some way for the giver to be depended on more. Needless to say, this one shows in unhealthy 2s who ignore other people's boundaries.
> 
> I'm thinking any butthurt over about the possible "selfish, egotistic" motivations of a 2 may come from denial and/or an over-romanticization of helping others *(such as necessarily equating it to sacrifice)*.


 That red part: what's up with that? I've seen this from twos IRL, *and* I've seen "refusing to seek help or to help others, since both necessarily involve sacrifices" from fives!

Like, if _they_ (twos) want to sacrifice something, then that's _their_ prerogative. I dislike it when _they_ expect *me* to adhere to _their_ ideas of generosity (two's superego concerns protection of a valued culture in which they participate). I generally have these conflicts when I unknowingly offended them by not being as "generous" (in a very specific manner) in my thanks!

Here's the thing: they *never* specified what they wanted in exchange for their efforts *at the beginning*. Or, if I had asked "do you want anything back [for helping me]?" they interpret that question as relating to something physical or tangible, like money or lending them some things or whatever, and so of course they'll say "no". Instead, they want to spend time with me, for some reason, and they wait until after their service was rendered before they attempt to retroactively apply an emotional/social debt onto me! (Triggers 8->5! Fuck these people!)

See, I accepted their offer of help, and I thanked them, and think that's it. Nope! If they're upset enough, they go on an angry "look at all of these things I did for you and this is how you thank me?!?" speech that can only be rebuffed by "I told you 'thanks, I appreciated it'. I didn't know you wanted anything else, and since I never agreed to it, you can't obligate me to it. In fact, if you wanted that much from me, and had I've known this in the beginning, I would have turned down your offer to 'help', because I don't want you to sacrifice anything for me, and it would've been faster and less of a hassle if I did it myself!".

Thanks to these people, when I interact with them, I have to keep in mind that I'm connected to five, and their vice is avarice. Five's vice and defensive mechanism probably exists because of people like them. Time is more valuable to me than material objects, and people attempting to impose on my time (retroactively *and* deceptively)? All that does is encourage me to avoid interacting with these people ever again.

I guess compared to both twos and fives, when I help out or donate things, I do it from the position of excess. I have so much energy/resources/expertise (being able to do things quickly saves time) that I can afford to spend them on others, for free! Because I have these things _in excess_, and I like doing constructive things, I can't possibly consider my donations to be "sacrifices". Yet, there are people who think that since my life isn't miserable enough, that "obviously" since I have more, I should do more, and since I don't, I'm selfish. ("The only time you look in your neighbor's bowl is to make sure that they have enough. You don't look in your neighbor's bowl to see if you have as much as them.") Well, those are people who can't mind their own business, and it'd be silly for me to waste my time trying to please people who can't be pleased.

If it's family members asking to "borrow" some money from me, then I "lend" them money with the full expectation that I won't receive anything back. Though for many people, when they know they can't pay me back, _they_ will go out of _their_ way to avoid making contact with me. All things considered, a small price to pay on my part.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> as soon as I make sense of all the rampantly conflicting information presented by experts with regards to 7s. with 2s it was easier because *zero of the 2s I've met/observed are remotely similar to the BS "Helper" shtick presented by R and H*. I also currently identify as a 7, so there is a lot of room for bias there.


 Well, I have. I've known some twos who definitely identified with the helper role AND the "Mother Teresa" thing (they tend to be church-goers and their church is their primary social group).

One thinks of herself as a good person spreading Christ's teachings, took a vow of poverty, and makes yearly mission trips to "help the poor". She also randomly invites herself to her brother's/my ex's apartment in order to clean his apartment. Like, cleaning his bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, and _even doing his laundry_. She's also the kind of person who thinks "love" is something she competes at. She tried setting up her brother into dating one of her friends, that relationship didn't work out, she was shocked, and then he started dating me. She never liked me, and eventually, *threatened to kill herself* if her brother/my ex ever dated me again. *She made it very clear that she'll go through it to teach my ex a lesson, and that it would be blood on his hands!* How Christ-like of her. She also apparently dislikes her stepmother/step-family because that means their dad won't pay as much attention to her. And my ex complained that she regularly calls/texts him to ask if they will hang out (that my ex ignores because he finds her annoying, so no wonder she invites herself), and that it bothered him that she felt entitled to their father's resources (she doesn't ask; she takes, since "duh, she can't afford it since she took a vow of poverty and all").

This chick and my ex's stepmother, also a two! Also identified with the role of helpful! Preferably without you knowing. The one time I ever came to their mansion, without much introduction, she quickly offered me food, offered to take me shopping for a bathing suit (because apparently I was supposed to bring one...), lent me some of her accessories so that I could hang out at their lake front, and spent a lot of time cooking and grilling things to serve the huge family. When my ex's car was having problems, she took it upon herself to schedule him an appointment with the dealership. When my ex had any "problems", by the time he gets to their house, his stepmother would have the solutions ready. This bothered my ex because he's a nine and likes to address things slowly.

While an aunt of mine isn't a church-goer, she identifies with the "helper" role, as long as it's financial: cash, buying a house for her parents, or providing jobs to people (she owns her own business). There were a few times when she mourned the loss of her disposable income because she wanted to give her rather-large family big cash presents. Pride!

Another aunt's idea of "helping" me is "lecturing" me. Or really, many twos who identify themselves as "mothers"/"fathers"/"as a parent..." are doing so because it implies being "loving" and "helpful". I mean, if you don't interact with twos in those kinds of relationships (the non intimate kinds), then I wouldn't expect you to see those parts of them. They don't care for your love, you're not their flesh and blood, and they would have no personal incentive to want to be helpful to you (it's almost as if that's not true altruism)!


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My problem with this and any other quotes from this book, is Naranjo's frustrating tendency to overly and unrealistically conflate Enneatype with personality disorders. Now, well this may well be an accurate portrayal of a extremely unhealthy 2 suffering from Histrionic Personality Disorder; it is also an extremely accurate description of *ANY type *who suffers from this disorder - who may or may not necessarily be a 2. According to Riso and Hudson, type 7s may also presents symptoms of HPD, as may any other type.

Now, I realize that your post is only response to anyone doubting Naranjo's viewpoints and a far as that goes; it is clearly consistent. I just think that Naranjo is off base with this approach.


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

it would be a food read  tnx


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> Now, I realize that your post is only response to anyone doubting Naranjo's viewpoints and a far as that goes; it is clearly consistent. I just think that Naranjo is off base with this approach.


And you don't think Riso and Hudson are off base when they attribute HPD to a type that is mapped the furthest from the emotional center on the symbol such as type 7? At least Naranjo is consistent with the theoretic principles of the map.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

ShadowPrince said:


> And you don't think Riso and Hudson are off base when they attribute HPD to a type that is mapped the furthest from the emotional center on the symbol such as type 7? At least Naranjo is consistent with the theoretic principles of the map.


I don't see the connection. Why is it inconceivable to you that a 7 could have HPD? 2s,3s, 4s aren't "emotional" types, they are *image* or *heart* based types. All types, including 7s can be emotional; so your argument really doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. What consistency? What principles? Sure, if you want to mistype people based on some superfluous connection to the DSM-5 but beyond that; I really can't see your point at all.


----------



## ShadowPrince (Jul 6, 2013)

Chesire Tower said:


> I don't see the connection. Why is it inconceivable to you that a 7 could have HPD? 2s,3s, 4s aren't "emotional" types, they are *image* or *heart* based types.


From Riso and Hudson:
_"There are three types in the Instinctive Center, three in the Feeling Center, and three in the Thinking Center"_
https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/how-the-enneagram-system-works/#.UgTzXm1RLGA

From Naranjo C&N:
_"... three fundamental groups: the schizoid group, with an orientation to thinking (V, VI, and VII), the hysteroid group, with an orientation to feeling (II, III, and IV) and another group (epileptoid) the members of which are constitutionally the lowest in ectomorphia and are predominantly oriented to action."_

Heart = emotion.



Chesire Tower said:


> All types, including 7s can be emotional; so your argument really doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever.


I don't argue that any type have emotions, but if any type can have HPD then why does R&H map them at all? Why HPD on 7 and not on 1 and 3 as well, which are far more likely to be diagnosed HPD than 7? I think the reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you don't understand the system or the types. Those who criticize Naranjo usually don't.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Chesire Tower said:


> My problem with this and any other quotes from this book, is Naranjo's frustrating tendency to overly and unrealistically conflate Enneatype with personality disorders. Now, well this may well be an accurate portrayal of a extremely unhealthy 2 suffering from Histrionic Personality Disorder; it is also an extremely accurate description of *ANY type *who suffers from this disorder - who may or may not necessarily be a 2. According to Riso and Hudson, type 7s may also presents symptoms of HPD, as may any other type.
> 
> Now, I realize that your post is only response to anyone doubting Naranjo's viewpoints and a far as that goes; it is clearly consistent. I just think that Naranjo is off base with this approach.


Yeah, I think he's full of shit there. I don't think types can really be linked to personality disorders. Maybe people with personality disorders would be more or less likely to be a certain type (like I really couldn't imagine a 5 with HPD), but it's not a perfect 1 to 1 correlation. Also all that psychoanalytical BS he brings into it too. Thinking that 4s as babies wanted to shit on their mother after devouring their breast? LMAO really? Even if that's supposed to just be some sort of metaphor, it's a really...shitty one. *rimshot*

That's not to say that the behaviors and personality traits he lists for each type couldn't be accurate, but not everything that he said should be taken to heart.


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

i dunno if you need/want to hear from a Two's side but i guess i would be a good chance to speak up (whether you may or may not want to hear it xD)...

The WORST disintegration I remember I’ve gone through is when I was working with my partner on thesis. I haven’t known I’m a 2 that time, I just found myself doing most of the task ALONE. My partner, who is also my closest friend (probably ENFP) doesn’t even care to help a bit (so WE could meet the deadline of submission) bcoz the clock is ticking and I’m running out of time bcoz I have other works to do. I kept on reminding her of her part and that I really need her cooperation to the point that it turns out I am “demanding” and “bossy” to her. But she end up putting all the work on my shoulder like it was my ‘duty’ to do so, while she was just sitting there singing and spending most of her time relaxing and dating her ISFP bf. And bcoz we’re friends, she confidently knows that I wouldn’t let her down and yes I didn’t. I played the role of “martyr” (for the sake of friendship) to the HOPE that she would at least “appreciate” all the efforts I’ve done. But I was wrong and she proved it the time she submitted me a soft copy full of 100% copy-pasted Internet articles that is absolutely irrelevant to the paper. No edit, no revision, no trace of any considerable effort. She just copy-pasted directly from the website to msword, saved on USB, submitted to me silently the next morning I enthusiastically approached her and greet “good morning”. She handed me the USB with a prideful facial reaction pinched with concealed tension, trying to hide the negative feelings she thought I would just overlook and forgive. Neither that she knows I could sense what’s inside her – the motives, the negative thoughts and feelings she feels atm and the exact reason WHY. 

It’s not the first time she neglected me and took advantage to our friendship. I felt like I want to explode but I choose to keep silent until I could no longer restrain. Eventually, the breaking point is reached. I burst out and can’t help but express all the negative feelings I suppressed for a long period of time I’m with her – how I awful and resentful I feel towards her. I reminded her all the sacrifices and the good things I’ve done for her and for the sake of friendship that she failed to see. That for all the things I’ve done, this is how she repaid me. I told her it’s not about the work or the paper or the part/responsibility she put on my shoulder. BUT the appreciation, value/importance I haven’t gain from her throughout the friendship in spite of everything I did. That she haven’t even value the friendship at all. That I felt like an instrument she depended on a lot and then just thrown like a USED tissue and neglected like I’ve done nothing. Finally, I crushed her. I crushed every little part of her sensitive soul. I’d hurt her and made her cry a lot to the point that she had almost lost her ‘reputation’ to face the people (bcoz she’s a politician). And what she can only say to me was “SORRY…I’m so sorry, I miss you… blah blah blah” with the hope that she could tame the beast on me, but she proved herself wrong bcoz it only reinforced my hostility and I crushed her even more. Why? bcoz I don’t need “apology”, I didn’t ask anything in return… I just want her to appreciate me so what I want to hear and feel all along is that she “appreciate” me and she sees my worth (Is that too much to ask?) But she failed to do so, and she realized it not a moment too soon. So yeah, I became extremely insensitive. I came down hard on her and rationalized it into “had love” – “I am doing this for your own good, and it hurts me more than it hurts you”…in other words, “loving confrontations” (I mean it, though) and I felt “entitled” to watch her suffering and regretting that she never even “appreciate” or see my worth and value me as a friend (who never let her down). This how I revenged from receiving nothing but passive-aggressive treatment and being left ALONE. And know what? I dunno but I don’t feel regret after doing so.

That’s the worst disintegration I’ve done. And I was also surprised by how I could do awful things like that until I’ve learned I’m a Two. The wounds have healed, though (as time goes by). We’re fine now, at least I realized that I could still forgive sincerely (just not forget entirely).

So YES, @drmiller100 I would like to thank you a lot for defending us, it means a lot since only few people could see beyond negativity. (It’s not flattery, I mean it) Its very nice to hear from a seven that at least somehow you could see the goodness in us even though it was really TRUE that when the disintegration occurs, it’s way too late to fix. Not even the most sincere, gentle and sweetest word could tame or calm a Two. It’s freakin’ destructive! The best thing other types could do when it occur is to let it be, keep distance and avoid apologizing, wait before it calm down before trying to explain. explaining could make us even more angry/aggressive but when the flame cool down, it will surely realize the harm it did to others and make ways to right the wrong. But prevention is always better than cure...


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

I don’t regret being a Two in some way although I have love-hate relationship with this type. What I don’t like about this thread (although it was objectively TRUE) is that it gives people the wrong impression towards the Twos. It was like saying that the Twos don’t have the right to ask for “appreciation” from others. I don’t see any wrong from hoping to be appreciated bcoz personally I don’t ask for it directly. And Twos don’t really ask for it. They just secretly hope to receive it. Not that I’m blaming other people but it’s just the FACT that people don’t really know how to give-and-take. People are not interested in giving, they just want to “receive” and Twos are just the reminder that we should learn the art of “reciprocation”. Why can’t people sse that? The twos will do anything to fulfil its role but what they receive in return is “judgement” from people, the motives are misinterpreted as it turns out that they expect anything in return for their kindness and altruism, they just want to gain attention; the twos are like this, the twos are like that and blah blah blah. Although it could be true, why cant people realize that Twos are not as “evil” as they portray. People doesn’t understand the “How and Why” of the situation and then judge the Two for being unhealthy and disintegrating. And then people will perfectly describe the disintegration process of the Two like they are the worst creatures ever exist in the world. Although it’s not far from the truth that the twos were like this and like that when unhealthy, so what? Just be reminded that everybody has their own “devils” inside and not ALL Twos are the same, and subtypes are just exaggerated esp naranjo’s theory (I can attest to that based on my own experience). And the unhealthy levels/states doesn’t cover the whole population of the Twos as well as the other types.

As a Two, I can see and imagine how I could fall under “Pulsatilla” and Histrionic personality criteria if it’s not with my strong wing 1 conscience and the humble influence/pull of the 9 on my fix. The two types help me regulate my behaviour carefully and prevent me from disintegrating in some way. At least I’m healthy, just sensitive one. However, thanks to my 9 fix, I still can’t decide which among SO and SP instinctual variant is dominant to me – I’m a little bit of all :x (although my result says I’m SP). But as an SP, although I love sweets, I have not experienced “over-indulging” to it and other physical needs like foods, meds, drinks, etc. and yes, I admit the sense of “entitlement” part but not to the extent of demanding “special” treatment. Most of the time I don’t feel “worthy” of things like special treatments, praises/affirmations, and other pride-enforcing stuffs from other people. Yes, it feels good in some way that other people see and acknowledge your worth/effort but on the other side it makes me feel awkward and uncomfortable. Ironically, I don’t feel “honoured” instead I felt “shame” and unworthiness receiving those stuffs.


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

i can see why and how naranjo correspond the enneatypes to personality disorders but *Type Two doesn't mean HPD.*
also, there are some that I found not true:



> Impressionable Emotionality
> 
> While ennea-types IV and II are distinctly the most emotional in the enneagram, type II can be regarded a more specifically emotional type, in that ennea-type IV emotionality frequently coexists with intellectual interests, while *type II is usually not only a feeling type, but an anti-intellectual one.*


I would venture to disagree. Bcoz I’ve known a lot of Twos who are intellectual (my ESE best friend included). And intuitive types are more interested in intellectual pursuits (myself included). So I guess it was unjust to conclude that we are “anti-intellectual” especially Twos with 5, 3, 7 wings or fixes.

And this one:



> The body build of ennea-type II is typically more rounded than ennea-type I and also softer than ennea-type III, and so it is possible to think that a genetically determined endomorphia supports the viscerotonic need for affection.


I am slim/ectomorphic, I was under weight. And I never reached the right weight or BMI for me. and I’ve known other Twos that are also like me.

Other than that, I’ve seen a lot of histrionic traits that naranjo correspond to Twos… this is from my personal copy of DSM-V:



> *Histrionic Personality Disorder*
> 
> Diagnostic criteria
> 
> ...


Some similar traits can be found under the criterion of Narcissistic personality and Borderline personality disorders.

Referring to the criteria of Histrionic, I can see why it corresponds almost perfectly to Twos. And I really wanted to correspond the traits to MBTI’s extraversion preference esp. criterion 1 which is common among ESFJ, ESFP, ENFJ, ENFP, if not for the exception that Twos can also be ISFJ, INFJ and INFP. [Like for instance, Mother Teresa is a 2w1 INFJ]. Still, this comparison is harsh and unjust bcoz the individual shouldn’t be diagnosed with the certain disorder if he/she did not meet the FULL criteria. Though I can see how and why Twos could fall into some of the criterion, it is never appropriate to say that


> “ennea-type II is found under the label of “Histrionic Personality Disorder”


 without proper assessment. Another thing that is exaggerated is the correspondence between the Twos and the Elektra and Oedipus complex, hedonism and many more. Similarities are not enough to prove the reliability of the comparison. and the traits that are over-attributed belongs to UNHEALTHY Twos alone and doesn't cover the whole type.. 

note: my apologies for some errors, i'm not in yet in a mastery level of my 2nd langauge xD


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

If 2s are not the compulsive "giver" type, what type are those people? Because they definitely exist, and the more warm gushy but with some manipulative streak ones I've always tentatively categorized as twos. (I have no idea what to do with the ones with no manipulative streak. They don't seem to be nines in other respects... But they so thoroughly lack any sense of self....) 

(also, I know at least one person who is unquestionably 2 (by virtue of being a really unhealthy two - unhealthy types are much more easily distinguishable than healthy ones) and it might be relevant to note that she would _absolutely_ self describe as the mushy soft stereotypical two descriptions of kind self sacrificing angels. Never mind that she demands absolute worship and devotion from anyone she touches and will actively sabotage anyone who doesn't buy into her image of kindly goodness (the bitterness coming across here is not from her attacking me personally but from the emotional abuse she put a friend through, complete with absolutely psychosis-level quantities of gaslighting) )

(Basically, I understood the image triad to be gaining worth through the image you project, with 3 going for successful and 2 going for good person (I don't quite get 4) and it seemed correct to me that for some people projecting "i am such a nice wonderful human being" really is neurotically important, whereas some of the 2ness you're describing (in terms of "I'm very successful") doesn't sound totally distinguishable from 3. I know that's not all there is to 2s or 3s, but still...)


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

@_Swordsman of Mana_ I have to admit it's taken me awhile to believe in the particular brand of two that you are obsessed with. Largely because most of the people I know to be twos are very much the stereotypical helper from Riso Hudson. However, I have noticed some since who seem to fit the bill. In the absence of getting into theory, I think I'll present Carol from the Walking Dead as an example of a(I think sexual-subtype) two who exhibits the qualities you describe:


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Pelopra said:


> If 2s are not the compulsive "giver" type, what type are those people? Because they definitely exist, and the more warm gushy but with some manipulative streak ones I've always tentatively categorized as twos. (I have no idea what to do with the ones with no manipulative streak. They don't seem to be nines in other respects... But they so thoroughly lack any sense of self....)


Maybe it's a specific kind of 2? Perhaps one not really associated with SX 2s? Furthermore, there are many ways one can give to receive. You can give love, friendship, attention, compliments, favors, etc. in exchange for the same thing or for admiration. It doesn't have to be material giving or a charity work kind of thing.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

In the interest of having a discussion, and I'm not trying to attack you (I just have very strong feelings. I'm going to blame it on family problems), but trying to provide another point of view:



Emeraude said:


> I don’t regret being a Two in some way although I have love-hate relationship with this type. What I don’t like about this thread (although it was objectively *TRUE*) is that it gives people the *wrong* impression towards the Twos.


 I don't understand how something that can be "objectively true" can give people the "wrong impression". How is it "wrong"? Is it not flattering enough?



> It was like saying that the Twos don’t have the *right to ask for “appreciation” from others*. I don’t see any wrong from hoping to be appreciated bcoz personally *I don’t ask for it* directly. And Twos *don’t really ask for it*.* They just secretly hope to receive it.* Not that I’m blaming other people but it’s just the FACT that people don’t really know how to give-and-take.


 No one is saying that twos don't have the right to ask for appreciation from others. In fact, I straight up ask people what they want in return. To me, the problem is that they *don't* ask for it (which you stated twice), *but they expect it anyway*.

It's a FACT that, in this example, you (and theoretically other twos) didn't ask for "appreciation". FACT: If anyone is neglecting their right to ask for appreciation from others, it's twos. If you didn't ask for it, then don't expect it. Personally, if I didn't ask for something, I probably don't want it either.

Hope vs expectation:
It's one thing to hope for something, and then be let down. Ideally, after dealing with the disappointment, one would get over it and move on. It's another when someone remembers/stores all of the times in which they got disappointed (building resentment in the process), and then use it against someone else for "being unappreciative".

When the second one happens (illustrated by 2->8), not only is there a lot of wrong in the situation, but there's also a lot of deception. I didn't think there was a problem in the "is this person feeling adequately appreciated" department, and since the other person didn't ask for it, I didn't think there was a problem!



> *People are not interested in giving, they just want to “receive”* and Twos are just the reminder that we should learn the art of “reciprocation”. Why can’t people sse that?


 Projection! It's not that people can't see the two's projection, it's that they're ignoring because it's so factually false.

Because by default, eights are interesting in giving (blame to others). They're interested in *giving* someone a punch to their face, and that other person *doesn't have a choice but to take it*. Without that integration to two, and/or exacerbated by disintegration to five, *eights are not interested in "receiving" or "being receptive"*, because what is being "received" may not only be unwanted, unhelpful, or damaging, but it could also obligate the eight/five to return the favor back, when *they did not ask to be given anything in the first place*.

I rather give than to receive, because I can control what I give, but I may not necessarily control what I receive.

If twos don't ask for things directly, then how is it possible to be "reciprocal" to them? It's too difficult to pull my head out of my ass long enough to magically discern what a person wants back, so that's why I ask directly. Eights are a reminder that *twos need to ask for the recipient's consent* before forcibly, and without saying anything, initiating something that they want reciprocated back. Because in that situation, the best you can hope for is that an eight doesn't throw your "gift" into the trash right in front of you if they suspect it's filled with all sorts of *hidden expectations* (activating "defense mechanism: denial" on a gift so deceptive that it's basically a trojan horse).



> The twos will do anything to fulfil its role but what they receive in return is “judgement” from people, the motives are misinterpreted as it turns out that they expect anything in return for their kindness and *altruism*, they just want to gain attention; the twos are like this, the twos are like that and blah blah blah.


 And why are other people's opinions of you (or any other twos) any of your (or any other twos') business? 

Is it really altruism if you expected anything back? If twos didn't ask for something directly, and it turns out they did expect something in return, then yeah, obviously the motives are misinterpreted... perhaps it has something to do with the twos not asking for something directly?

How can you justify your reaction to someone's indignation or scorn if you, or other theoretical twos, refused to make it clear what it is that you want back? Some people want to give back, but they don't know how, so the "what and how" needs to be *clearly and unambiguously stated*, and if it isn't, then I don't feel like you (or really, anyone else regardless of type) have a right to hold that against others.



> Although it could be true, why cant people realize that Twos are not as “evil” as they portray. *People doesn’t understand the “How and Why” of the situation* and then judge the Two for being unhealthy and disintegrating. And then people will perfectly describe the disintegration process of the Two like they are the worst creatures ever exist in the world.


 Nah man! Don't worry about it, just blame it on the two disintegrating into eight! Unhealthy eights are portrayed so sociopathically and "over-represented in the prison population" that what's another minor unflattering detail?

*There has not been a single sentence in this post that indicated that twos actually give a shit about what the recipients really want!* And how would twos really know what the recipients really need/want if twos don't ask? (It's a dead giveaway of the two's intentions; that's why twos don't ask!) Average twos just *assume* another's needs/wants! Because at the end of the day, what average twos are giving to others are things they *secretly* (and dishonestly communicated about) want and expect back in return. This isn't about the recipient, it's about the two disguising their own needs/wants and displacing it onto another person, and I personally experience this as a boundary violation!

While they're not "evil", people have the right to dislike people whose method of control/influence are based on deceptively hidden intentions.



> *Although it’s not far from the truth* that the twos were like this and like that when unhealthy, *so what?*


 ... then why did you reply? "So what?" Perhaps because some people have twos in their lives that they care for, and want to know about what's going on in their minds, so that people can understand them better? Or to prepare and react appropriately? Or trying to be able to know what they want and not accidentally offend their pride?



> Just be reminded that everybody has their own “devils” inside and not ALL Twos are the same, and subtypes are just exaggerated esp naranjo’s theory (I can attest to that based on my own experience). And the unhealthy levels/states doesn’t cover the whole population of the Twos as well as the other types.


 As an eight, with the whole "me vs them" "specific difficulty: blame" thing going on, I would rather be reminded that people are inherently good and trustworthy. But that doesn't necessarily mean that people's negative reactions are unjustifiable either.



> Ironically, I don’t feel “honoured” instead I felt “shame” and unworthiness receiving those stuffs.


 Maybe, from the recipient's point of view, it's worth wondering whether they would feel the same way!


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Father of Dragons said:


> @_Swordsman of Mana_ I have to admit it's taken me awhile to believe in the particular brand of two that you are obsessed with. Largely because most of the people I know to be twos are very much the stereotypical helper from Riso Hudson. However, I have noticed some since who seem to fit the bill. In the absence of getting into theory, I think I'll present Carol from the Walking Dead as an example of a(I think sexual-subtype) two who exhibits the qualities you describe:


Carol is an Sx/Sp 9. in fact, she is a _beautifully_ written Sx 9. imo, Naranjo only describes half of this type. part of them is a submissive doormat who clings to people in an almost Stockholm Syndrome sort of way, like the way she is in the beginning with her abusive husband. however, underneath all that, Sexual 9 is a very *sturdy* personality, and I have enjoyed watching her blossom throughout the show. the strong secondary Sp also makes her much more *survivalist* when she needs to, and she can be quite assertive and do the shit she feel needs to be done which other people lack the guts to do.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@cir 


> No one is saying that twos don't have the right to ask for appreciation from others. In fact, I straight up ask people what they want in return. To me, the problem is that they don't ask for it (which you stated twice), but they expect it anyway.


this is much closer to home than what he was saying. @Emeraude not feeling you "have the right to ask" in the first place is much more 9 than it is 2. 2's reluctance to ask for help largely stems from their connection to 8. it's an affront to their pride to have to admit that they need anything from people. 

@Pelopra


> If 2s are not the compulsive "giver" type, what type are those people? Because they definitely exist, and the more warm gushy but with some manipulative streak ones I've always tentatively categorized as twos. (I have no idea what to do with the ones with no manipulative streak. They don't seem to be nines in other respects... But they so thoroughly lack any sense of self....)


good question. in my opinion, these people tend to be 9s and, especially, Social 7s. in the case of the latter, what you are not seeing is not a lack of a sense of self, but a kind of "counter-egotistical" personality of sorts. according to Beatrice Chestnut: "It's as if they can sense the tendency within themselves toward gluttony, and decide to instead define themselves as anti-gluttonous".


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Carol is an Sx/Sp 9. in fact, she is a _beautifully_ written Sx 9. imo, Naranjo only describes half of this type. part of them is a submissive doormat who clings to people in an almost Stockholm Syndrome sort of way, like the way she is in the beginning with her abusive husband. however, underneath all that, Sexual 9 is a very *sturdy* personality, and I have enjoyed watching her blossom throughout the show. the strong secondary Sp also makes her much more *survivalist* when she needs to, and she can be quite assertive and do the shit she feel needs to be done which other people lack the guts to do.


I don't want to de-rail your thread talking about the Walking Dead, so I'll just respond once and leave it at that.

I personally can see where you are coming from in viewing Carol as a nine, but I think it is a mistake to make this interpretation simply because of her submissiveness to her husband. It's analogous to assuming a person is a two because they are helpful. Abusive relationships are complex, and I think any type of person with low self-worth could fall into the pattern of 'Stockholm Syndrome.' 

I think a good foil against Carol is Tyreese, who is an obvious 9w8. As Naranjo says, SX 9's are 'wallflowers' - we have a tendency to fade into the background, as Tyreese does, focusing instead intensely on those he cares about. Carol on the other hand is not like this, with the way that she is constantly jockeying for control over and impact on the group. As an example, I would interpret her killing of Tyreese' girlfriend as a misguided attempt to develop a selfish notion of being a savior, which is more in line with type 2. Also, I would interpret her "guts" and aggressive tendencies to be a product of disintegrating to eight, more than anything else.

Another relevant set of data would be her behavior when they finally reach the walled community. She appears at first blush to care about the boy she bakes cookies for, but it becomes abundantly clear that she doesn't gaf about him, more about her image and pride. She is manipulative, and has no "tenderness" for him, as we would expect an sx 9 to have. 

At any rate, she is a fictional character so it is of course difficult to be certain of a type. It's just that I saw her as someone fitting your more aggressive, selfish conception of two. If you disagree, then that's fine.


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

pardon for late response… I might have missed this one..



cir said:


> (I just have very strong feelings. I'm going to blame it on family problems)


Clearly… from the very first part of your response strong emotion is quite apparent xD 



> I don't understand how something that can be "objectively true" can give people the "wrong impression". How is it "wrong"? Is it not flattering enough?


bcoz the descriptions sound more like stated in negative connotation so it can be interpreted in negative ways whether the reader may or may not missed to read the ‘note’. that is to say, imagine if people who’s unfamiliar with enneagram read those… what do you think would they think about Twos? – That 2s are attention seekers/whores, conceited, unauthentic, delusional, etc? so how could it be “flattering”?



> No one is saying that twos don't have the right to ask for appreciation from others.


Yes, that’s why I said “*It was like* saying that the Twos don’t have the right…..”
I didn’t put it into conclusion.



> In fact, I straight up ask people what they want in return.


So what’s the significance of saying that? My point is you’re not a 2 so you would very likely to do your way, which differ to 2s – “asking straight about what others want.”



> To me, the problem is that they *don't* ask for it (which you stated twice), *but they expect it anyway*.


‘expect’ is different from ‘hoping’ (if that makes sense)… however, unaware 2s might really ‘expect’ until they learn the outcome (just like me)…it depends on the individual but personally I now settled to JUST ‘hope’ bcoz ‘expectation’ provides deeper disappointment. Twos’ ‘expectation’ is probably due to codependency.



> FACT: If anyone is neglecting their right to ask for appreciation from others, it's twos. If you didn't ask for it, then don't expect it.


You can’t judge the book by its cover… try to scratch beneath the surface... ‘neglecting’ is different from ‘repressing’ (unconscious forgetting)… if the description says the 2s ‘neglect’ their needs, it doesn’t mean they’re ‘neglecting their ‘rights’… needs doesn’t mean ‘rights’, they don’t ask bcoz they might don’t feel/think they have the ‘right’ to ask (i dunno exactly from them). [And 2s may not be aware of it as “repression” operates unconsciously]. That’s why 2s (when healthy) are seen as “humble” creatures. The 2s either ‘repress’ OR (if self-aware enough) ‘suppress’ (consciously forget) their needs bcoz they want to project or produce a positive image that is good enough in the eyes of the others due to the desire to be perceived as “good”. Producing positive image doesn’t necessarily mean 2s pretend/act to be “good” just to get their own needs met (at least for the healthy ones). Let’s just say that 2s believe that through having positive image, they could win people’s love, care, attention, etc.

Also, ‘asking’ is different from ‘demanding’… just like: you can never expect a return from a favor you did just bcoz you ‘asked’ that person to, bcoz you can never have the perfect assurance by just ‘asking’…so you could just ‘hope’ (but I believe most people fall into ‘expecting’ if not fully aware)…but if you want to ‘expect’ then demand! (just like most unhealthy/disintegrating 2s do). Having the upper hand might increase the probability that you could get what you’re ‘asking’ for. Just be sure that you have all the ‘right’ to do so or you might end up embarrassing. Unfortunately though, unhealthy 2s may leave these traits unchecked.



> Personally, if I didn't ask for something I probably don't want it either.


Again, bcoz you’re NOT a 2 (at least from what I noticed below your name: 8w7)… I don’t exactly know why you seem so affected (maybe there’s a 2 somewhere on your fix or something) but self-referencing doesn’t always work esp when comparing two distinct persona or things. It was like saying that apple tastes ‘sweet’ so unripe citrus should taste ‘sweet’ too. Each type has their own ways, approaches; coping up strategies, and defense mechanisms and these are not necessarily the same with the others regardless whether they are of the same type or not.



> When the second one happens (illustrated by 2->8), not only is there a lot of wrong in the situation, but there's also a lot of deception. I didn't think there was a problem in the "is this person feeling adequately appreciated" department, and since the other person didn't ask for it, I didn't think there was a problem!


There was a saying that “expectation is the root of all heartaches”… so the problem is when expectation begins (and did not met) negative emotions would follow and thus may result to further problem or deeper hurt. Remember that not all 2s/people feel ‘adequately appreciated’ and it bottles up.



> Projection! It's not that people can't see the two's projection, it's that they're ignoring because it's so factually false.


“Factually false” or “subjectively false”?  when I said: “people are not interested in giving, they just want to receive”, isn’t it a FACT? (that most people are self-centred)? Coz if it’s ‘factually false’ and I’m just “projecting” a positive image of 2, then why are there people who let the less fortunate die in hunger? Why are there people who witness a hit-and-run scene and just watch and then go rob the victim’s belongings instead of helping him? Why are there people who can betray the humanity in exchange of material wealth? Those are just examples that could support the ‘fact’ that people are not interested in giving, bcoz they’re preoccupied with their own egocentric desires. I don’t think I have intent of projecting a positive image here.

(back to you)…so it is “Factually false” or “subjectively false”? Coz I guess it’s you who projects your emotions in the first place (it reflects from your self-referencing)… when I said “Why can’t people see that?” its no projection, I stated this bcoz that’s how I see it… plain and simple. If people tend to ‘ignore’, it’s bcoz they think that its fake/‘false’ (in other words “pretentious”) BUT not necessarily “factually false”. Don’t just jump into conclusion. People may simply judge or interpret things the way they perceive it, therefore ‘subjective’. We can only say a ‘fact’ is fact when it’s proven true, how could you prove the truthfulness of a certain thing if you would just rely on your subjective interpretation? Most of the time people failed to read through ulterior motives, which is crucial on interpreting things. That is to say, “what if” the person genuinely wanted to help somebody? See? Let’s just say that not all that glitters are gold. You just have to distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘fake’.



> And why are other people's opinions of you (or any other twos) any of your (or any other twos') business?


If I were to ask, any issues concerning about 2s are also the 2’s concern/business…bcoz we represent that type (here)…so I guess we have the right to react or at least speak our sides so we could protect/defend our image against any threat. In other words, if any of the people’s opinion about the 2s makes it their business, any respond is probably bcoz they are mainly concern about their “image”… that is to say, if the image the people is trying to portray on the 2s is negative, its either the 2 admits, deny, or contradict depending on honesty and how they perceive or relate into it.

Other than that, if any of this issue is my concern, it is also bcoz I hate stereotypes as much as I hate any form of negativity. Also, I felt the need to defend others. And bcoz I have this thing I call ‘concern’… (anything wrong with that?)



> Is it really altruism if you expected anything back?


Apparently ‘no’…(who said that, anyway?) If you read the word ‘altruism’ in 2s description and it turns out that the 2 (you know) expect something in return then probably that 2 person is on the average level 5. We must be reminded that there are 9 levels that 2s progresses on:



> *Levels of Health — More Depth By Level*
> 
> *Healthy Levels*
> 1.“Radiant Altruism” – (At Their Best) Become deeply unselfish, humble, and altruistic: giving unconditional love to self and others. Feel it is a privilege to be in the lives of others.
> ...


So don’t get confused about the genuinely altruistic vs manipulative 2s. The HPD traits that naranjo and this thread correspond to is the unhealthy level 9 Twos. And the other negative traits pertain to average level Twos. I guess that’s the major issue in this thread. IMO, the traits are TRUE (about 2s) but NOT necessarily ‘over-attributed’, its just that the thread ONLY include the traits of average to unhealthy level 2s. It’s not comprehensive, I can’t see any traits that pertain to healthy levels, and instead it turns out that the positive traits of healthy 2s are ‘translated’ into “over-attributed” traits of 2s. Again, it’s not “over-attributed”, I believe those are positive traits of Healthy Twos. Perhaps it just happened that most of the 2s are yet in the average to unhealthy levels (so no wonder why many could relate/agree and think this is factual…but I see it more like theoretical than factual). And perhaps some people just don’t want others to expect too much about the twos. However, it’s still risky and unjust to generalize, bcoz come to think of it: “how about the healthy types that are excluded?” they have the right for exemption.



> If twos didn't ask for something directly, and it turns out they did expect something in return, then yeah, obviously the motives are misinterpreted... perhaps it has something to do with the twos not asking for something directly?


How would you know that the motive was misinterpreted if you don’t even know the ulterior ‘motive’ to begin with?

I just want to remind you that it doesn’t mean a person did NOT ask ‘directly’, he doesn’t expect… who knows? (Never assume unless otherwise stated). it always depend on the individual. Let’s just say that the 2s don’t ask ‘directly’ but still he may or may not expect. That’s why empathy is crucial when communicating with the 2s bcoz most of the time they don’t ask directly (bcoz they don’t feel the right), they just let you sense they’re needs. I don’t think 2s could change it.



> How can you justify your reaction to someone's indignation or scorn if you, or other theoretical twos, refused to make it clear what it is that you want back? Some people want to give back, but they don't know how, so the "what and how" needs to be *clearly and unambiguously stated*, and if it isn't, then I don't feel like you (or really, anyone else regardless of type) have a right to hold that against others.


Personally I don’t think I have to justify. I dunno for the others but I would choose to admit that it’s my wrong that I haven’t made it clear and take responsibility for that. The key to harmonious communication is to reconcile and compromise. You don’t have to make other people owe everything to you. I still can’t ask ‘directly’ (i.e “I’m going to help you with this but will you please love me, care for me or at least ‘appreciate’ me back?) c’mon, can anybody say that? Now, ask yourself how could you ask ‘directly’ that you wanted to be loved and appreciated if you feel that you don’t have the right to do so? It was like begging – begging other people to love you back is like to giving them the right to step on you…bcoz you owe them something. Asking for things that are ‘priceless’ is a lot harder than asking for material things. Bcoz these things are not something you can just ask or give, it comes down to the person if he will give it to you or not. 



> Nah man! Don't worry about it, just blame it on the two disintegrating into eight! Unhealthy eights are portrayed so sociopathically and "over-represented in the prison population" that what's another minor unflattering detail?


No too… what I am saying is the “reason” why the 2 (or other type) behave like that. People usually don’t care about behind the scenes. It was like hearing a news that person A (type 8) killed person B so he was apprehended. what may come first to your mind is that person A is a ‘murderer’ bcoz he killed person B (period). But what if person A didn’t really killed person B? that he was just accused for a crime he didn’t really commit? Who cares to know behind the scenes? no one! (except you’re a loved one). That’s why I said “people doesn’t understand the how and why of the situation” bcoz they easily make judgement without knowing why or how or care to know if its true or not.

what you said again? “*just blame it on the two disintegrating into eight!*”… is that all?? Your words aren’t all about 2, but yourself alone. If you’re the kind of person who believes that there is always someone to blame then start admitting to yourself that you’re COWARD and weak bcoz you’re afraid take responsibility for your own deeds. Always putting the blame on other people’s shoulder, you do this bcoz you fear to admit that something’s wrong with you, and you’re afraid to get overwhelmed by guilt. (I also noticed here: *I just have very strong feelings. I'm going to blame it on family problems*). You should start working on that.



> *There has not been a single sentence in this post that indicated that twos actually give a shit about what the recipients really want!* And how would twos really know what the recipients really need/want if twos don't ask? (It's a dead giveaway of the two's intentions; that's why twos don't ask!) Average twos just *assume* another's needs/wants! Because at the end of the day, what average twos are giving to others are things they *secretly* (and dishonestly communicated about) want and expect back in return. This isn't about the recipient, it's about the two disguising their own needs/wants and displacing it onto another person, and I personally experience this as a boundary violation!
> 
> While they're not "evil", people have the right to dislike people whose method of control/influence are based on deceptively hidden intentions.


This is resentful. I don’t think I came across with a 2 like that. But I can see why you can say it and that may be true (again, depends on the health level). But to tell you what, The solution is in front of you – if that is the case, then refuse what they offer, say ‘no’ (period) instead of sayin’ blah blah blah. And I think it would be effective if you confront that Two person exactly what you’re complaining to me now. Just avoid thinking that all people are the same, just like I’m not thinking that all 8s are like you. One person or group still shouldn’t be the representative of the whole population. Remember that just like in every rules, there’s always an exemption.



> ... then why did you reply? "So what?"


bcoz just like what I have said, “everybody has their own “devils” inside and not ALL Twos are the same”… what I mean is, “so what” if 2s have negative traits? Each type has their own negatives as well, and nobody’s perfect anyway. Do I have to explain further?



> Perhaps because some people have twos in their lives that they care for, and want to know about what's going on in their minds, so that people can understand them better? Or to prepare and react appropriately? Or trying to be able to know what they want and not accidentally offend their pride?


no...it's not the reason but you answer your own question. 



> As an eight, with the whole "me vs them" "specific difficulty: blame" thing going on, I would rather be reminded that people are inherently good and trustworthy. But that doesn't necessarily mean that people's negative reactions are unjustifiable either.


I’m a hard-core optimistic but you should know when to start doubting. If you’re going to see just one side of a coin, how many percent is the probability that it was correct? You shouldn’t see things through just ‘one’ perspective. If that is your difficulty why not remind yourself (instead) that you are in charge of your own life and therefore should take responsibility on your own actions. There would be no better cure than ‘accept’ when you made a mistake and shouldn’t put the blame towards other people for making you miserable. That’s what people (regardless of type) should learn.



> Maybe, from the recipient's point of view, it's worth wondering whether they would feel the same way!


If you know you would feel the same way, the only solution I’m seeing here is to say ‘no’.


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Emeraude not feeling you "have the right to ask" in the first place is much more 9 than it is 2. 2's reluctance to ask for help largely stems from their connection to 8. it's an affront to their pride to have to admit that they need anything from people.


although i have 9 on my fix, i'm NOT seeing myself as 9-dom either... i'm more prideful than self-effacing...i can also be confrontational instead of withdrawing...and i know exactly what i want. i relate some of 1s but i'm not too rigid as they are, i may be as optimistic as 7s but i guess lack the mental energy and extraversion. i don't relate to 8 at all. other than 2, i can only relate to 4, but i'm way too enthusiastic to be melancholic. i don't even have 4 as a wing. i'm not security-oriented as 6 but i do have it as a wing on my 5 fix. i can relate to 5 a lot but i guess i lack the _genius_ part. so yeah, i'm NOBODY xD


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Emeraude said:


> pardon for late response… I might have missed this one..
> 
> Clearly… from the very first part of your response strong emotion is quite apparent xD


 Thank you for your response. I'm sorry if I come off a bit harsh. I think your contribution is very valuable, especially since you're one of the few twos who is brave enough to face these harsh criticisms with elaboration.



> bcoz the descriptions sound more like stated in negative connotation so it can be interpreted in negative ways whether the reader may or may not missed to read the ‘note’. that is to say, imagine if people who’s unfamiliar with enneagram read those… what do you think would they think about Twos? – That 2s are attention seekers/whores, conceited, unauthentic, delusional, etc? so how could it be “flattering”?


 Yeah, I don't see what's "wrong" about that. I don't feel like an inappropriate positive tone to gloss over those aspects to be "right" either. I think the reason it's painted so harshly is because it's meant to shock twos into realizing how they are alienating the people they love. And I recognize _healthy_ twos are not like that all, just like how healthy types of any type aren't much like their unhealthy counterpart.



> So what’s the significance of saying that? My point is you’re not a 2 so you would very likely to do your way, which differ to 2s – “asking straight about what others want.”


 Because "not asking" (vice: pride) is like, the entire problem behind twos. They can't really know what other people "need" or "want" without asking the intended recipients, and *others*, who want to reciprocate back for the two, don't know what the two needs/wants if twos don't ask or be willing to provide an answer when asked (because it offends their pride). I mean, I don't see how you can complain that people don't reciprocate, and then later say that accepting gifts make you feel "shame". That means it's not possible to reciprocate. "Not asking", in disintegration into eight, turns into "taking", which will _definitely_ alienate people.



> That’s why 2s (when healthy) are seen as “humble” creatures.


 This is my way at trying to be positive: Healthy twos *are* humble (have virtue:humility). They aren't "seen" as "humble". (I actually have a 3 fix, so the distinction between "how one is" and "how one is seen" is important to me.)



> Again, bcoz you’re NOT a 2 (at least from what I noticed below your name: 8w7)… I don’t exactly know why you seem so affected (maybe there’s a 2 somewhere on your fix or something)


 Because I have an 8->2 connection? Reinforced by way too many family members, people who I love, who are twos? That's why I'm so affected.



> “Factually false” or “subjectively false”?


 Interesting. :happy: I actually was thinking about this a while ago and was wondering which super-ego type would have the most difficulty with this.



> when I said: “people are not interested in giving, they just want to receive”, isn’t it a FACT? (that most people are self-centred)?


 Oh definitely! But "most people are self centered" is *different* from "most people just want to receive". Average eights are typically self-centered people who are not interested in receiving or being receptive.



> Coz if it’s ‘factually false’ and I’m just “projecting” a positive image of 2, then why are there people who let the less fortunate die in hunger?


 Because this implies that all people have the power to do something about it. There are many rich, ignorant, sheltered people in first world nations, for example, who have never had to suffer a hungry stomach in their lives, and in their world, those kinds problems don't exist.



> Why are there people who witness a hit-and-run scene and just watch and then go rob the victim’s belongings instead of helping him?


 Because bystanders assume someone else will fix that problem. And robbing the victim? Well, the robber's mindset is that the dead won't need those material possessions, but since the robber is alive, they can put it to use.



> Why are there people who can betray the humanity in exchange of material wealth? Those are just examples that could support the ‘fact’ that people are not interested in giving, bcoz they’re preoccupied with their own egocentric desires. I don’t think I have intent of projecting a positive image here.


 Because there are shortsighted people out there who don't really believe in a future or have stakes in the future. See, my family are war refugees, from a senseless, meaningless war that *isn't even about* "material wealth" (where "agent orange" was used to *destroy* material wealth), so I really, _really_ understand that. There are people out there who just want to see the world burn.

No, I don't think you are projecting an image with these examples, just confusing "self-centered" with "not interested in giving".



> (back to you)…so it is “Factually false” or “subjectively false”? Coz I guess it’s you who projects your emotions in the first place (it reflects from your self-referencing)…


 Indeed, I do this. I prefer to project out my belief in the world's goodness and trustworthiness, because I think that's closer to the truth than that everyone is out to get me. Unfortunately, it has a way of projecting out my "strength" too, which people find intimidating.



> We can only say a ‘fact’ is fact when it’s proven true, how could you prove the truthfulness of a certain thing if you would just rely on your subjective interpretation?


 You sound like someone from the image center (someone with a perception to Holy Law)! (My day job is in the legal support industry.)

Unfortunately, the kind of hard proof you are asking about has a way of stripping out a person's intentions. "Is it true, that on this date, you did x?" (specifically phrased in a way to bring attention to the physical motions), then the defendant responds, followed by, say, testimonies from witnesses. That's why there's a thing called "the letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law", in an attempt to preserve that subjectivity to "get the whole picture".



> Apparently ‘no’…(who said that, anyway?) If you read the word ‘altruism’ in 2s description and it turns out that the 2 (you know) expect something in return then probably that 2 person is on the average level 5. We must be reminded that there are 9 levels that 2s progresses on:


 Oddly enough, I don't think human behavior can be described in such neat levels. The reason I don't think it's "real" altruism is because I think there is an inherent reward from the act of giving. Like, when requested, I can feel good from the act of giving, because being able to give is an expression of my power, and I *don't need* anything back. Not even "thanks". I am *that* self-centered, that I can feel good *without* someone else's input after enacting my service.

It's really interesting, that the 258 triad is about "evolution". In a different thread, I did some minor amounts of research to connect 5<->8. Here's one for 8<->2, "evolution" of "altruism":


> One such phenomenon is known as biological altruism. This is a situation in which an organism appears to act in a way that benefits other organisms and is detrimental to itself. This is distinct from traditional notions of altruism because such actions are not conscious, but appear to be evolutionary adaptations to increase overall fitness. Examples can be found in species ranging from vampire bats that regurgitate blood they have obtained from a night's hunting and give it to group members who have failed to feed, to worker bees that care for the queen bee for their entire lives and never mate, to Vervet monkeys that warn group members of a predator's approach, even when it endangers that individual's chance of survival. All of these actions increase the overall fitness of a group, but occur at a cost to the individual.
> 
> *Evolutionary game theory explains this altruism with the idea of kin selection.* Altruists discriminate between the individuals they help and favor relatives. Hamilton's rule explains the evolutionary rationale behind this selection with the equation c<b*r where the cost (c) to the altruist must be less than the benefit (b) to the recipient multiplied by the coefficient of relatedness (r). The more closely related two organisms are causes the incidences of altruism to increase because they share many of the same alleles. This means that the altruistic individual, by ensuring that the alleles of its close relative are passed on, (through survival of its offspring) can forgo the option of having offspring itself because the same number of alleles are passed on. Helping a sibling for example (in diploid animals), has a coefficient of ½, because (on average) an individual shares ½ of the alleles in its sibling's offspring. Ensuring that enough of a sibling’s offspring survive to adulthood precludes the necessity of the altruistic individual producing offspring


 HA! I knew it!! There *really* were reasons that my family triggered my two-ness a lot more than others. :shocked:



> And the other negative traits pertain to average level Twos. I guess that’s the major issue in this thread. IMO, the traits are TRUE (about 2s) but NOT necessarily ‘over-attributed’, its just that the thread ONLY include the traits of average to unhealthy level 2s. It’s not comprehensive,


 I think that's because healthy types of every type resemble healthy types of other types. It's hard to capture an image of healthy twos, because lol healthy twos do whatever they want (Holy Freedom) as long as they can take care of themselves and aren't trapped into a cycle of compulsive giving, guilt, and resentment.



> How would you know that the motive was misinterpreted if you don’t even know the ulterior ‘motive’ to begin with?


 From the comparison of the presence of one and the absence of another. I don't *need* to know the ulterior motive, because by the time a two (*cough*or someone who has a component that disintegrates to two) confronts someone, it comes right out. When someone *uses the ways they've previously provided help* as reasons for why their demands must be met, when those weren't stated or agreed upon before the help was enacted.



> I still can’t ask ‘directly’ (i.e “I’m going to help you with this but will you please love me, care for me or at least ‘appreciate’ me back?) c’mon, can anybody say that? Now, ask yourself how could you ask ‘directly’ that you wanted to be loved and appreciated if you feel that you don’t have the right to do so?


 My family usually say something like "I will help you, but you *must* respect me. If you don't respect me, then you don't respect my help. Someone else can help you".



> No too… what I am saying is the “reason” why the 2 (or other type) behave like that. People usually don’t care about behind the scenes. It was like hearing a news that person A (type 8) killed person B so he was apprehended. what may come first to your mind is that person A is a ‘murderer’ bcoz he killed person B (period). But what if person A didn’t really killed person B? that he was just accused for a crime he didn’t really commit? Who cares to know behind the scenes? no one! (except you’re a loved one). That’s why I said “people doesn’t understand the how and why of the situation” bcoz they easily make judgement without knowing why or how or care to know if its true or not.


 I believe in a "self defense" option, where if my life or the life of my loved ones are in immediate danger, that killing in that situation is justified. As a last resort. Thankfully, the law of where I live recognizes this. In the US, some states have a "castle doctrine" in recognition of this right.



> what you said again? “*just blame it on the two disintegrating into eight!*”… is that all?? Your words aren’t all about 2, but yourself alone. If you’re the kind of person who believes that there is always someone to blame *then start admitting to yourself that you’re COWARD and weak bcoz you’re afraid take responsibility for your own deeds*. Always putting the blame on other people’s shoulder, you do this bcoz you fear to admit that something’s wrong with you, and you’re afraid to get overwhelmed by guilt. (I also noticed here: *I just have very strong feelings. I'm going to blame it on family problems*). You should start working on that.


 I'll just admit it to the public: I am a weak, lazy, coward who prefers to death than to experience excruciating amounts of pain. Funny story about that. Someone who I loved committed suicide, and somehow, I was dealing with this feeling of guilt that perhaps I was responsible for his death. Like, my love wasn't good enough to keep him alive. It did take me a while to work on that. I take my responsibilities very seriously, perhaps beyond the appropriate limits at times.



> If that is your difficulty why not remind yourself (instead) that you are in charge of your own life and therefore should take responsibility on your own actions. There would be no better cure than ‘accept’ when you made a mistake and shouldn’t put the blame towards other people for making you miserable. That’s what people (regardless of type) should learn.


 I mean to say that "I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt" and I believe in "no harm, no fowl" and "forgive and forget", but sometimes people take advantage of that.



> If you know you would feel the same way, the only solution I’m seeing here is to say ‘no’.


 I'm unsure whether *unhealthy* twos can take "no" for an answer. And since they don't ask, there isn't an opportunity to tell them "no" before it's too late.

Thank you for the interesting discussion!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Emeraude concerning Naranjo calling 2s anti-intellectual, he also deems 8s the most motor-sensory and the most focused on seeking physical pleasure and gratification which I also think is true and almost reeks of being more of an ESxP stereotype. Even at my unhealthiest, I certainly wasn't indulgent in that way.


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

@cir

thanks too for replying in detail... i fuckin' love details  however, since i have limited time responding, i haven't read the whole response so yeah i'll save it for the meantime and construct a reply later (and since i wanted to respond in detail too)...
@Entropic

yes, that's what i'm actually bothered with. i've seen a lot of variations between MBTI and enneagram correlations as it turns out that a certain MBTI type is contradicted to enneagram type... but i believe your side, it has really something to do with cognitive functions... Myers-Briggs / MBTI & Enneagram Correlations is puzzling...



> *Myers-Briggs / MBTI & Enneagram Correlations*
> By Dr. A.J. Drenth
> 
> *Enneagram 1 (One)*
> ...


as INFP, it turns out that i should be 4 or 6... but i typed as 2 (which also the reason behind my result as ISFJ in jungian test). but many others doubt my 2-ness as i sound more like a 9 (but i doubt that it was my dominant type either)... perhaps i just love the idea of 2, consequently i mistyped as 2... but i just realized that i have no right to be called "generous" or "the helper" bcoz in reality i'm not much of a giver. i hate being depended on bcoz i want people to practice independence. my idea of helping is to provide useful information to people... in short, 'knowledge-based'. i rarely help directly. the nearest type (which is also my latest typing) is 5w6 and i guess the description fits me more. the only thing i doubt about it is bcoz i reject the idea of being "nerd" (altho i really love reading books, investigating, and researching, i love intellectual pursuits and very scientifically inclined) BUT i refuse to be a 5 bcoz i'm not an "albert einstein", i don't see myself as genius as him xD

btw, before i totally went off on a tangent, i found this article very useful|: A Calibrated Table of Correlations for the Enneagram and MBTI systems

i wanted to post the whole article here but since people may not be inclined to read walls of texts, so yeah... just kindly refer...xD

EDIT: oh, there it is 



> *The five with six-wing. *
> Core of sub-type: five with six-wing; *INxP (Ambidextrous T and F)*


i'm not certain if i'm ambidextrous, though xD (i'm right-handed) lol


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Emeraude that's one of the most trash articles I've read in a very long time. The guy has zero understanding of both the MBTI and the enneagram. It's actually painful. He's a professional or something? Wow, just fucking wow. He's exactly like the Fauvres except he's coming from the MBTI rather than the enneagram perspective. He reads some generic type descriptions, notices correlations between the descriptions of the types and draws a conclusion based on that. It's circular as fuck. 

Take type 4 for example. I've seen so many ESFJ type 4s who think they are intuitive and may mistype as either INFJ or INFP because they don't understand how to recognize the difference between cognitive intuition and the generic colloquial understanding of intuition. They may even be misidentified as such by others as well because they are 4s and people are in disbelief that 4s can commonly be any other type than INFJ or INFP. 

Based on my own statistics using data samples off PerC, gathering data on people whose types I am sure of, my correlations are as follows: 

1: Lacks sufficient data because there aren't many who type as 1s on PerC, but primary types present are INFPs and INTJs, *with INFP being the overwhelming sample* (interesting, huh? goes very contrary to popular opinion). 

2: Lacks sufficient data, again for the same reason as for 1, but if I would for example go off fiction, there seems to be no real correlation between 2s and cognitive types except perhaps, a bit more of an emphasis on feelers than thinkers but again, this isn't a hard rule. Archetypically, then, it seems as if even in people's minds, there is no real particular character trope that is more 2 than any other trope, assuming somewhat developed and three-dimensional characters. 

3: Also sorely lacking data. Seen INTJ 3s to be quite common but there doesn't seem to be any real correlation here except, contrary to what is stated, thinkers tend to be more likely to be 3s, but this isn't a hard rule. Typed one INFJ as a 3, one ENFJ, one INTP via my type practice (they themselves suggested to be 3s with one exception). Seen quite a few ENTP 3s on this site as well. Going off fiction, seen ESTP 3s, though in the villain department, ENFJ 3 is a common trope, but so is ENTJ. The conclusion is that 3 is a very diverse type.

4: I have purposefully avoided to include INFP and INFJ 4s without knowing for a fact whether I think they are 4s to avoid bias, but what I do have is that there is a tendency towards *feeling doms* to be 4s, including ENFJs and ESFJs and ISFPs. Also have an ENFP 4 just to break that mold there, because people think INFP > ENFP. 


5: I think I am biased due to my social circle on PerC, but there is a predominant bias towards Ti doms here. *NOT* INTJs though, I should add that, though there are a fair share of INTJs who are 5s as well. However, I have purposefully avoided to type certain individuals especially regarding INTx as 5s, because they often get 5 on their test results (as did I back in the day). There is however, also a fair share of ISTJs that are 5s, which should be pointed out. I've also been around some other enneagram communities outside of PerC, and there we often have feelers of all kinds who tend to type as 5s, as to counter the stereotype that one has to be a thinker to be a 5. Certainly not. In this respect Jung was most definitely wrong, imo, making a clear association with feelings and the feeling function. In fiction, 5 is also often stereotypically associated with Ti doms, both ISTPs and INTPs. 

6: Zero pattern whatsoever. There seems to be a truth and merit to that 6 is the most diverse type of the enneagram. 6 is also a very common type and has by far the largest type representation. I have also typed a lot of 6s in the past. 

7: No pattern towards EPs here either. Quite a few J types here, and that is also true for fictive examples, though 7 IJs are often mistyped as EPs. Due to low data, there is no type that is predominant, even. Especially INTJ 7s, should definitely be brought up here because this type combination is far more common than what people think it is, especially _in_ fiction. 

8: No logic here, zero, lol. ENTJ is quite common, but so is ESTP and ENTP, but then we got quite a few INTJs and even some INTPs. The only common factor among them is that they tend to be thinkers though there are certainly fictive examples of feelers being 8s as well. 

9: A few interesting notes here: ENTPs and INTJs are predominant as opposed to IPs. There are also a couple of ISFJs that are more common than the other already mentioned types that should be noted, since this is another correlation that people don't readily see or accept in the public.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm gonna be blunt: Riso and Hudson's take on 2s is _total_ bullshit.

@Emeraude
subtypes aside, I tend to think of the most common Enneatype/MBTI as follows

1: __TJ
2: E_FJ, ES_P
3: ___J
4: I_FP (INFJ 4s are way over typed)
5: INT_
6: any 
7: E__P
8: ES_P, E_TJ
9: I__P, I_FJ


----------



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

@Swordsman of Mana Have you done a thread like this for 5's? If you haven't, I would love it if you did one. If you have, do direct me to it.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> *2) Needing love:* it's true, 2s need love....._so does everyone else_, especially heart types in general. 2s could better be characterized by a _distorted relationship with love_, in which they confuse being loved with being _desired_. Naranjo correlates this type with Histrionic Personality Disorder, a disorder which seeks attention at all costs. to the 2, all press is good press and they are notorious drama queens. celebrity culture in general is full of this personality, with it's ability to captivate and seduce masses of people whose lives lack drama, passion or spark.


True, but to many 2s, "desired" means "needed", and not always sexually. While there certainly is a sexual streak to type 2 it's not quite as central as you'd think. In a nutshell, this is the type 2 mindset;

1) A hidden sense of rejection and humiliation, semi-metaphorically described as a "frustrated love experience" in childhood that caused the child to feel rejected at an early age.
2) Ego-inflation as a defense mechanism, reacting to that feeling of rejection. Basically, the mindset is "I shouldn't have been rejected. I'm awesome! Look at all the stuff I do for others! You should find me awesome!"
3) A need to find someone who helps the 2 maintain that ego-inflation. This is where tactics like seduction come into play; by behaving seductively/soliciting love, the 2 reinforces the self-image mentioned in point 2.
4) A desire to control the person(s) who is/are currently reinforcing that self-image, to avoid losing that person, which would partially invalidate the self-image. This is where the manipulative side of type 2 comes into play. Basically, if the person they've seduced leaves them, they are forced to go back to the feeling of rejection they're trying to escape. So they avoid that by doing whatever they can to keep the people they've attracted.

It's important to note that this seduction is not always, or even usually, sexual. That's why the helper stereotype is not completely invalid. Not everybody has the personality (or more cynically, the body) for seduction, so there are many other strategies for getting the "everybody thinks I'm awesome" self-image 2s crave. Baking cookies and taking care of people is actually one of the more common strategies for that.

For example, a 2 I dated a while back prided herself in her ability to stay friends with all of her exes. After she broke up with a guy, she would go to lengths to make sure they stayed friends, even if it was a distant friendship. By doing this, she felt she was avoiding true rejection. (Most of these guys were people SHE dumped.) It wasn't sexual for her. It was just a need for everybody to _like_ her, even those SHE had rejected.



> *2) Assertiveness and Power Seeking:* there is considerable range in term's of the 2's exterior. many are charming, some haughty, others coy and the worst scathingly narcissistic, but underneath, there is a little (or big) 8 inside every 2 proclaiming "I always get mine", and, whether they seduce through sex, entice through cuteness or simply take what it is they want, they are very good at doing so..


It's more like "I have to get mine, and I deserve mine". It's not malicious, it's just entitlement.



> *5) Sensation Seeking:* also like 7, the 2 is an easily bored personality. they crave drama, excitement and stimulation and, when they don't get this emotionally, their thirst for intensity and "filling themselves" can turn more tangible. 2s are over-represented among those with eating disorders and are often adrenaline junkies (their connection to 8 helps, as this can also be a more physical type than is immediately obvious).


I'm sorry, but this is not really type 2. Maybe the sx instinct. But not explicitly type 2. I know a number of low-key, mild 2s that get their quota of love by being sweet and helpful. Tritype and instinct would shape this far more than the core type.



One of the best examples I've found of type 2 is this song.






http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/bigdata/thebusinessofemotion.html



> Oh I been watching you
> I'm gonna get you high
> The things I do to you
> They're gonna make you cry
> ...


----------



## Hei (Jul 8, 2014)

Part 1
1) Helpfulness: It is said that the motivation of any action by any individual, even that of charity, is inherently selfish. We act good and pride ourselves in being good to continue to feel good. Something not unique to any person. Inherent self-preservation.

2) Needing love: I really do not see the drama stirring bit in myself... I definitely see a strong inclination for partnership in myself, relationship and friendships. I do not like attention at any cost. I do not want to associate myself with people I cannot connect with, and I also do not want a massive network of people I get on with. To me, in order to obtain meaningful friendships one must limit their association allowing them to invest into more great experiences with the same people. And yes there is a higher level of love and support to be had between friends this way. The same quality cannot be achieved if one creates a network where they can get their get attention from acquaintance #17 because everyone else is busy. Humans are zoon politikon. I strive for the best I can have with people... perhaps because of this greater need of mine? I do not know.

3) Cultivating an image of goodness: I do not think it is ego at all. I am not presenting any image other than what I am, nor would I say I am acting good for the sake of an image as I never really find myself discussing my actions. Refer to number 1.

4) Generosity: Refer to 1. Also occasional gifting to friends is a way I show I appreciate them when I can afford to do so because I can be so terribly shit with verbal expression at times.

5) Femininity: My results say I am sx/sp 2w3. I am not very impulsive at all.

6) Conflict Avoidance: I do not like conflict but I do seek resolution.

Part 2
1) Pride: 
The imaginary exaltation of self-worth and attractiveness: I am not really vain. I like to think of myself as knowledgeable, fair, and helpful at best. But I constantly put into perspective there are others who are better in these aspects.
Demanding privileges: Never
Boasting: Maybe??? Past being proud of an accomplishment I might tell a handful of people but I am not going to bring it up with strangers of plaster it across media. 
Needing to be the center of attention: I do not know. I do not like having all eyes on me. However, I do prefer 1 on 1 time with friends. When I am with people I am comfortable sharing whatever comes to mind I want to be able to do that... and I am not really in a position to do that when a conversation is fast paced and ever changing with multiple people. When it is just you and someone else the bonding time is better.

2) Assertiveness and Power Seeking: 8 was the one thing I _never_ scored a point on when I took the enneagram. Assertive? Yes, I can be, but I am normally quite passive. Power seeking? Yeah perhaps in terms of career. Relationship wise no. I do not want to feel like I have someone under me (_SoM be careful_).

3) Charisma: I am quite good at parliamentary debate, and at managing competitive group projects if no else takes the lead. I am not sure how charismatic I am... I am much more social than I used to be, not all that stiff, and people tend to like me but to what extent I am not sure.

4) Charlatanry: This is new to me so I have no idea what to say.

5) Sensation Seeking: I will readily extend an olive branch to you here. I need a fair amount of stimulation (_watch yourself_). And the thing is I don't always have the courage to try new things or initiate plans. I rely a bit on my extrovert friends. I have an affinity for people who are spontaneous and passionate. However, I do not like drama. As for things in excess, I typically deny my temptations. Food is not a temptation but I think it just is worth mentioning for the sake of what you outlined.

6) Independence: Another olive branch. I do not like the idea of being reliant on anyone. Even if I have people that I know would readily support me, I do not let my problems breach into the lives of friends and family, and if it has it was generally my failure to contain it. And I have not sought help when I could have used it continuously against my better judgment... and I am actively working on fixing this.

I do want to note I have taken the enneagram test from different sources with the same results.


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm gonna be blunt: Riso and Hudson's take on 2s is _total_ bullshit.
> 
> @Emeraude
> subtypes aside, I tend to think of the most common Enneatype/MBTI as follows
> ...


'bluntness'? where??? lol
hmmm... suppose that makes a lot of sense... still, its hard to compartmentalize the types... there are lot of factors to be considered and i dunno if theorists are done of arguing whether the e-gram types change as people learn on their experiences xD

now, i guess i'll be back on typing myself as 'unknown' bcoz that's the only type that BEST describe me...LOL

but if i'm going to type myself based on what you've posted, it turns out that i should be...



> 4: I_FP (INFJ 4s are way over typed)
> 6: any
> 9: I__P, I_FJ


:whoa:

i relate to 4, and recently i typed as 4 sp (with above average level of health)... wtf!!! xD
bcoz as i have seen a lot of INFPs typed as four are quite individualistic and looked like a drug addict or something:









:whoa: wtf!...i'm the exact opposite of that... i dress up exactly as 2w1 - neat, conservative, refined or more formal than necessary, most importantly 'unique' and unconventional... i don't dress as invisible and traditional as 9w1. but unlike typical 2s though, i dont dress up for the sake of getting attention (i hate being the center of attention or being noticed) im averse of flattery, ironically it catches people's attention *sigh* eh, i couldn't give up my way of expressing myself (i just intimidate people so they won't say the compliments on their mind) xD

i never typed as 6 too. i rarely feel 'anxiety'...fear - yes, but anxiety - no... i don't relate to 6 at all,except from my CP wing 6, that would be acceptable. and 9??? i guess that must be the most common among my type but i don't really feel it right to be 9... i'm not a peacemaker, i'm good at initiating arguments, in short i'm a scatter-brained trouble maker xD

btw, i guess he's right... perhaps you should write about the 5's. this may take a li'l bit harsh but it's a very useful reference.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Emeraude said:


> bcoz as i have seen a lot of INFPs typed as four are quite individualistic and looked like a drug addict or something:
> 
> View attachment 349194


Is that supposed to be the INFP crackwhore/


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

@cir



> Thank you for your response. I'm sorry if I come off a bit harsh. I think your contribution is very valuable, especially since you're one of the few twos who is brave enough to face these harsh criticisms with elaboration.


Don’t worry; I’m not seeing it as ‘harsh’… I try to view things as objectively as possible by setting aside my emotions/sensitivity (but I believe there are instances that I also got emotionally affected – ex. This thread). Tbh I dunno but I got energized whenever somebody put an effort to dissect my posts and criticize it (maybe bcoz I also do the same thing xD), it’s fun! besides it’s affecting since only few people pay attention to details and finds infos that contradicts it.



> I think the reason it's painted so harshly is because it's meant to shock twos into realizing how they are alienating the people they love.


I think so… that’s why I couldn’t blame the initiator of the thread…in spite of the negative connotation, it’s still a good reference. unfortunately though, not all people are able to see where he’s coming from xD



> Because "not asking" (vice: pride) is like, the entire problem behind twos.


Through reading this, i’ve seen the huge difference bet. me and majority of 2s. I mean, I guess majority is right; I’m not really a Two (I’m more like a 9). bcoz my way of “not asking” is not rooted from what you call “pride” [i.e I don’t need your help more than you need me(?)] --> I don’t know if that’s their definition of pride. Bcoz “pride” for me is “not letting other people step on you”. but usually I compromise this ‘pride’ in exchange of harmony and peace of mind. Although I don’t initiate reconciliation if I know that I am “right” and he/she was “wrong” all along (this is ‘pride’ for me) UNLESS I value that person enough to be seen as worthy of my humility (Being ‘right’ isn’t worth the fight after all). If I do not ask, it could mean I am way too shy, I doubt that the person may not be able/willing to give it, or I don’t feel it important or worth asking for (bcoz I can do ways to provide it on my own), or I feel unimportant/unworthy of what I am asking for. Most of the time I don’t bother people for the things I needed bcoz I value independence a LOT. I hate owing anything from people. And I want people to be the same way so I only offer help when necessary. If in case somebody ask me a favor or something I will provide if I could AND if there’s no other way/person that could help him. Again, I hate being depended on, he/she must be independent or I disregard and will keep on seeing him as weak or irresponsible due to dependency. I guess this dismisses me from being a Two. I’m blaming my hopeless romantic tendency for making “love” my highest ideal. 2s and INFPs share a lot of common ground esp “altruism”, so that may explain it. I’ve still got an awful lot to learn about typology.



> They can't really know what other people "need" or "want" without asking the intended recipients, and others, who want to reciprocate back for the two, don't know what the two needs/wants if twos don't ask or be willing to provide an answer when asked (because it offends their pride).


I understand. I believe though that most 2s are gifted in sensing people’s needs without asking but the tension takes place when others find it intruding and unnecessary. Myself for example, I believe my ESFJ friend is a 2 (intellectual 2)… she loves deep digging my needs and find ways to please me bcoz there’s an underlying belief in her that I’m so helpless and I “need” her more than I need other people. I noticed it every time she talks to me or chat me… 

“Are you going through something?” [not so far xD]
“Are you lonely?” [No, I’m fine]
“Do you miss me?” [yes, I do somehow xD]
“See?!! I told you we should bond! Where do you want to go? I miss you” [yeah, let’s set the date while I still have time to spare]
“Is your # still the same?” [yeah, just text me]
“you didn’t reply  you don’t really miss me (…” [what? You haven’t text yet]
“hehehe… I miss u” [ok… let’s visit the newly opened Exploreum in the city  plssssss I really longed to explore the science gallery and exhibit, the planetarium, and all ]

See how she makes ways to be needed? There are times that she even invents “imaginary” needs of other people so she could fulfill her role bcoz she feels good about it in return. I believe though, that her motive was oh-so genuine and there’s no trace of even a little need for repayment. I guess she’s not aware about the unconscious influence of it. Unfortunately though, the plan was cancelled bcoz we don’t share the common interest about science and explorations. Sometimes I was thinking that she don’t really want to bond or be with me (although she loves my company). I mean, it has to do with her need to be needed and she enjoy my company not for the laughter I brought her but for the reward of fulfilling her role as she extends herself for me (which for me is ‘intruding’ and only blocks the intimacy). Perhaps she was attracted to me bcoz I appear ‘needy’ (maybe bcoz I’m socially aloof/detached and looks depressed). She wanted me to depend on her, which I don’t bcoz I value autonomy and privacy a lot. And I hate talking about my ‘emotions’ bcoz I think this is the most vulnerable part of me, i'm always in a poker face, so people tend to ask about it but its really hard to describe. so i guess I’m not completely aware about my emotions at all although I feel it oh-so strongly.



> This is my way at trying to be positive: Healthy twos are humble (have virtue:humility). They aren't "seen" as "humble".


Hmmm…are you sure you're not just trying to convince yourself about it?



> Because I have an 8->2 connection? Reinforced by way too many family members, people who I love, who are twos? That's why I'm so affected.


Indeed, that’s why I believe its actually you who projects yourself to 2s. I also noticed it from here: *“Perhaps because some people have twos in their lives that they care for, and want to know about what's going on in their minds, so that people can understand them better? Or to prepare and react appropriately? Or trying to be able to know what they want and not accidentally offend their pride?”* that’s why I said, it isn’t really about 2s, but YOU xD



> HA! I knew it!! There really were reasons that my family triggered my two-ness a lot more than others.


By all means blood is thicker than the water. but i guess it’s normal since the society function mostly through that cycle.



> I think that's because healthy types of every type resemble healthy types of other types. It's hard to capture an image of healthy twos, because lol healthy twos do whatever they want (Holy Freedom) as long as they can take care of themselves and aren't trapped into a cycle of compulsive giving, guilt, and resentment.


Yes… let’s just say that, you’ll never know if someone is sick unless the symptom appears.



> My family usually say something like "I will help you, but you must respect me. If you don't respect me, then you don't respect my help. Someone else can help you".


I guess it’s more like your family is subjecting the member into (operant) conditioning xD that’s one way of imposing discipline rather than ‘demanding’ for pride’s sake although it really sounds demanding, but well i'm still not in the full possession of facts so i couldn't conclude. But if it isn’t your family, then chances are you're subject for manipulation (just like my unhealthy mother).



> I believe in a "self defense" option, where if my life or the life of my loved ones are in immediate danger, that killing in that situation is justified. As a last resort. Thankfully, the law of where I live recognizes this. In the US, some states have a "castle doctrine" in recognition of this right.


I’ve heard news though that ‘crime of passion’ is no longer acknowledged by the law in my country, and psychological disorders are commonly used to acquit the offender.



> I'll just admit it to the public: I am a weak, lazy, coward who prefers to death than to experience excruciating amounts of pain. Funny story about that. Someone who I loved committed suicide, and somehow, I was dealing with this feeling of guilt that perhaps I was responsible for his death. Like, my love wasn't good enough to keep him alive. It did take me a while to work on that.


How could you say you were responsible for his death? More often than not, self-blaming only leaves a room for more excruciating amount of suffering. It just exacerbates the emotional strain.



> I take my responsibilities very seriously, perhaps beyond the appropriate limits at times.


good...Yet, putting responsibilities to a wrong shoulder wouldn’t help either. again, each individual is responsible for his/her own action so self-blaming won't do either.



> I'm unsure whether unhealthy twos can take "no" for an answer. And since they don't ask, there isn't an opportunity to tell them "no" before it's too late.


perhaps bcoz it could mean ‘rejection’ for them. Still, the best way to respond is to say ‘no’ to them. That’s what I do whenever someone offers me something. It doesn’t mean ‘pride’ to me, I say ‘no’ (although it's really hard to say 'no') mainly bcoz I fear that I couldn’t reciprocate that. Or if I could (however), I tend to doubt or over think if he/she will be satisfied the way I return his/her kindness. i mean, i always feel that i have to meet his/her expectation of me.


----------



## Emeraude (Nov 12, 2014)

mushr00m said:


> Is that supposed to be the INFP crackwhore/


*shrugsss*


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@drmiller100
while my opinion of your disregarding 50% of the content of my posts hasn't changed, I will concede that I could do with a few less psychotic examples of 2s. 

for the sake of balance, here's a good fictional representation of a young male 2 So/Sx 





@LondonBaker 
pardon the abruptness, but what makes you think you are Sexual 2? Sexual 2 is an extremely extroverted, impulsive personality who is not afraid to be showy and would be the last type to blush nervously at a flirtatious comment (as I've seen you do in the past several times :tongue: ). you come off more modest, shy, analytical. you have a seductive cuteness about you, but it's much more 9-ish, Sp 6-ish or Sx 5-ish than Sexual 2. if you're convinced you are a 2, have you looked into Sp 2? that would be a much closer fit


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

>>>@_drmiller100__
while my opinion of your disregarding 50% of the content of my posts hasn't changed,

you tagged me into a thread i was done with and told you.

sorry you misunderstood - after this thread the ratio is quite a bit higher. 

FWIW, I don't do anime or type people visually nor do I type characters on TV._


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Emeraude said:


> I think so… that’s why I couldn’t blame the initiator of the thread…in spite of the negative connotation, it’s still a good reference. unfortunately though, *not all people are able to see where he’s coming from xD*


 Not all people are *willing* to see where he's coming from. How other people _choose _to interpret things are outside of my, and other content creators', control. I may be able to influence a message, but that's it.

[HR][/HR]


> Don’t worry; I’m not seeing it as ‘harsh’…* I try to view things as objectively as possible by setting aside my emotions/sensitivity* (but I believe there are instances that I also got emotionally affected – ex. This thread). Tbh I dunno but I got energized whenever somebody put an effort to dissect my posts and criticize it (maybe bcoz I also do the same thing xD), it’s fun! *besides it’s affecting since only few people pay attention to details and finds infos that contradicts it.*





> Through reading this, i’ve seen the huge difference bet. me and majority of 2s. I mean, I guess *majority is right*; I’m not really a Two *(I’m more like a 9)*. bcoz my way of “not asking” is not rooted from what you call “pride” [i.e I don’t need your help more than you need me(?)] --> I don’t know if that’s their definition of pride. *Bcoz “pride” for me is “not letting other people step on you”. but usually I compromise this ‘pride’ in exchange of harmony and peace of mind.*


 I apologize in advance if my suggestion may offend you, and *I am definitely projecting*, but have you considered type three? Type threes are "the most logical" image type.

Most average nine's cognition tend to be hazy and lacks a lot of resolution and definition. Most certainly don't feel energized enough to respond back to my replies (I bet nines probably feel dread if they saw that I replied to them). A type three holy idea is Holy Harmony.



> I’m blaming my hopeless romantic tendency for making “love” my highest ideal.


 Sounds about right... Type nine's Holy idea is Holy Love. Quite frankly, you don't sound lazy enough to be a typical nine.



> I understand. I believe though that most 2s are gifted in sensing people’s needs without asking but the tension takes place when others find it intruding and unnecessary.


 Yeah... Twos do that by projecting their own needs. Eights do something similar to sense for weaknesses.



> Myself for example, I believe my ESFJ friend is a 2 (intellectual 2)… she loves deep digging my needs and find ways to please me bcoz *there’s an underlying belief in her that I’m so helpless and I “need” her more than I need other people*. I noticed it every time she talks to me or chat me…


 I'll be honest, dude. That sounds a bit creepy. For just a friend. I might also take offense if a "friend" thinks I "need" this specific friend more than I need other people (I might _appreciate_ specific friends more than others, but "appreciate" is different from "need"). I'm also paranoid as fuck as to what lengths this person might to do sabotage my other relationships to make this "need" come true. By talking shit about me to my other friends, alienating those friends from me, and then pretending to be my "best friend". Nope, I'd rather be friendless.



> “Are you going through something?” [not so far xD]
> “Are you lonely?” [No, I’m fine]
> “Do you miss me?” [yes, I do somehow xD]
> “See?!! I told you we should bond! Where do you want to go? I miss you” [yeah, let’s set the date while I still have time to spare]
> ...


 No... But I do see how she made ways to be _wanted_.



> There are times that she even *invents “imaginary” needs of other people so she could fulfill her role bcoz she feels good about it in return*. I believe though, that her motive was *oh-so genuine* and there’s no trace of even a little need for repayment. I guess she’s not aware about the unconscious influence of it. Unfortunately though, the plan was cancelled bcoz we don’t share the common interest about science and explorations.* Sometimes I was thinking that she don’t really want to bond or be with me (although she loves my company). I mean, it has to do with her need to be needed and she enjoy my company not for the laughter I brought her but for the reward of fulfilling her role as she extends herself for me (which for me is ‘intruding’ and only blocks the intimacy).* Perhaps she was attracted to me bcoz I appear ‘needy’ (maybe bcoz I’m socially aloof/detached and looks depressed). *She wanted me to depend on her*, which I don’t bcoz I value autonomy and privacy a lot. And I hate talking about my ‘emotions’ bcoz I think this is the most vulnerable part of me, i'm always in a poker face, so people tend to ask about it but its really hard to describe.* so i guess I’m not completely aware about my emotions at all although I feel it oh-so strongly.*


 Yeah... That sounds more two-y. Am I the only one that finds that alarming? Have you tried looking into type three, possibly 3w2?

[HR][/HR]


> Hmmm…are you sure you're not just trying to convince yourself about it?


 Yes, actually. The state of my humility has *nothing* to do with whether other people *are* humble vs "seen" as "humble". There are more eyes than just mine to verify this. Considering I'm well aware that unspoken type eight fear of being humiliated (type two's virtue is humility, hmm...), by not claiming things I can't do or back up and being willing to entertain alternate possibilities, I don't run afoul of that line of humility. Other people might feel threatened by my self-esteem, which I think is weird since my internal state is no one else's business to pry or compare themselves to. Some people project their misery upon me and try to pull me down to their level. They'll call me "arrogant" or "think I know everything", but I think it says more about the person who feels the need to redirect the topic to something personal rather than staying on topic.

Ultimately, I don't pretend to be humble, and I don't present myself as someone who is humble. No one is going to buy that coming from me, the ones who would buy my "humility" are not people I'm going to trust, so I'm not going to waste my time on it. If someone else thinks I am trying to do that, it's a *reflection* of those people's values. It's definitely not coming from me.



> *Indeed, that’s why I believe its actually you who projects yourself to 2s.* I also noticed it from here: “Perhaps because some people have twos in their lives that they care for, and want to know about what's going on in their minds, so that people can understand them better? Or to prepare and react appropriately? Or trying to be able to know what they want and not accidentally offend their pride?” *that’s why I said, it isn’t really about 2s, but YOU xD*


 *I already admitted that I project.* Many basic description of type eights will reveal this. I project *indiscriminately*. I mostly assume that people are fine ("know what they need to do and got their shit figured out"); and then people tell me that I'm wrong, and I'm *the only one* who feels that way. The people who are healthy generally recognize that I'm not a threat to them (I can't control them, and I don't want to), so they don't generally do things that would trigger a reaction from me, like probe or attack my character. But that twos project their needs onto others can be verified from other sources, if you insist that it's *only* me:



Mario Sikora said:


> For point two, the core quality is empathy. We often think that Twos are very empathic people, and to some extent, they are. *But very often, one of the challenges that Twos face is that they're often projecting needs onto other people.* *They're often assuming that somebody needs something. "I'm cold, so you must be cold too, and I'm going to give you a blanket" is the attitude sometimes that Twos fall into.*
> 
> What Twos need to learn to do is actually practice empathy, which is truly understanding what the other person is feeling. The way to get real compassion is almost to sort of step back and objectively get a sense of what the other person's feeling.
> 
> Very often, I tell Twos, you know what? Before you just assume what somebody needs, ask them. "What are you feeling now?" *Instead of saying, "Oh, you're probably feeling blank." No. Ask them.* This is the empathy that allows true compassion to grow.


Type eights and twos are the most active projectors, and as an eight, *I know myself, my limits, and my triggers* well enough to do be able to do simple vector algebra:


> Projection shapes what reality looks like from different type perspectives. *Eights report a world of potential conflicts to control, while Twos feel bombarded by other people’s needs.* *Each type’s reality is subjectively true*, but when emotions run high, our conditioned focus of attention “in here” shapes what we actually see “out there.” *Then we are caught in an unrecognized illusion where you are the source of my well-being or you are causing my distress.*


 I try my best to accommodate people's preferences, but frankly, I can't please everybody. I'm responsible for my own emotions *only*, that I'm willing to consider others' is a luxury afforded by being in a healthy state, and if I'm not spending the effort to articulate my difficulties, then that's probably because I think my problems are personal, and therefore, no one else's business. 

[HR][/HR]


> By all means* blood is thicker than the water.* but i guess it’s normal since the society function mostly through that cycle.


 I love this quote. My family uses this on me all the time. The version *I* subscribe to is "blood of the covenant is thicker than water of the womb".



> Yes… let’s just say that, you’ll never know if someone is sick unless the symptom appears.


 While this is true, it is also in the individual's responsibility to take preventative care so they minimize what they spread to others.



> I guess it’s more like your family is subjecting the member into (operant) conditioning xD that’s one way of imposing discipline rather than ‘demanding’ for pride’s sake although it really sounds demanding, but well i'm still not in the full possession of facts so i couldn't conclude. But if it isn’t your family, then chances are you're *subject for manipulation* (just like my unhealthy mother).


 That's my core fear. My defense mechanism, when uncontrolled, means I'm not listening to them. It's hard to be continually subjected to their manipulation if I cut off communication to the undesirable members of my family.



> I’ve heard news though that ‘crime of passion’ is no longer acknowledged by the law in my country, and psychological disorders are commonly used to acquit the offender.


 "Self defense" is *not* "*crime* of passion". Especially not if it is codified into legality (which it is in my country). Let's just say the US is very gung-ho about their gun rights. There are considerations about whether being the cause of another person's death is a crime in the first place. Similar to distinguishing between "murder" and "manslaughter"; intent vs negligence.

It is life or death. *Kill or be killed.* I wouldn't mind public execution if killing the offender is the difference between life and death of my family, other loved ones, or general humanity. What is one or two extinguished lives if others I care about get to live? Isn't ultimately, the closest thing to "real" altruism is the willingness to sacrifice one's own life?



> How could you say you were responsible for his death? More often than not, self-blaming only leaves a room for more excruciating amount of suffering. It just exacerbates the emotional strain.


 This was in response about me being too much of a coward to take responsibilities for my own guilt. So how could I feel like I was responsible for his death? Pretty easily. That was back before I understood the appropriate limits of my power. Humility has a way of smacking my face and saying "You can't control his life. You can't control his thoughts, feelings, or decisions he made. You can't control his death". 

However, this kind of humility is a bit different than the kind where other people are threatened by my abilities to do something. If being seen as "humble" by other people requires me to deny my abilities to do something, especially if I've already demonstrated my capabilities, then isn't that really those other people's projections upon me? And their attempts to teach me "humility" is really meant to break me down to their level? That is why I don't present myself as "humble", because obviously no one is going to buy it.



> perhaps bcoz it could mean ‘rejection’ for them. Still, *the best way to respond is to say ‘no’ to them.* That’s what I do whenever someone offers me something. It doesn’t mean ‘pride’ to me, I say ‘no’ (although it's really hard to say 'no') mainly bcoz *I fear that I couldn’t reciprocate that*. Or if I could (however), I tend to doubt or over think if he/she will be satisfied the way I return his/her kindness. i mean, i always feel that i have to meet his/her expectation of me.


 Indeed. "Defense mechanism: denial" means it's very easy for me to say "no" to them. Mostly because I find it difficult to trust their perceptions, let alone accept the sugar-coating of their intentions. And good god, no, I'm not reciprocating if it was unwanted in the first place.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Zamyatin


> I'm sorry, but this is not really type 2. Maybe the sx instinct. But not explicitly type 2. I know a number of low-key, mild 2s that get their quota of love by being sweet and helpful. Tritype and instinct would shape this far more than the core type.


sensation seeking does not mean they're all Se-dom thrill seekers. the part about being over represented among adrenaline junkies applies mostly to Sx 2 (I should have specified that, especially since "sensation seeking" already has a very physical connotation). like 7, 2 is a very *diva* type which is attracted to the flashy, dramatic and stimulating. many of the 2s I know have a strong sweet tooth and pull from 8's lustiness and penchant for indulgence in rich food. 



> It's more like "I have to get mine, and I deserve mine". It's not malicious, it's just entitlement.


I'm aware it's not always malicious, and I included a range of manifestations. that said, in 2s with a strong line to 8, it can be _very_ malicious. it can also range from pathetic tantrum-y to a more healthy assertiveness and a general belief that they deserve high quality (though they probably won't spend as much time actively thinking about it as 7s or 8s, since their _conscious_ mind tends to be more others oriented)


----------

