# MBTI is influenced by the 2nd and 3rd types in your Tritype?



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

nichya said:


> @Swordsman of Mana
> 845: witches, demons and Nietzsche
> only one fix away ! :tongue:


847 is more "evil queen", "villainous diva", "exotic cult leader" (think Malefecent, Cruella de Vil)

also, 147 and 127 are the heroic, operatic soprano leads while 847 and 845 are the sinister bass/alto villains


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 847 is more "evil queen", "villainous diva", "exotic cult leader" (think Malefecent, Cruella de Vil)
> 
> also, 147 and 127 are the heroic, operatic soprano leads while 847 and 845 are the sinister bass/alto villains


Haha, if only ! I have no oppositions to having the right skill set to be an exotic cult leader. I think the core gives a totally different tone on the palette though. Being a heart type is very different than being a gut type. I did notice though a part of me, prolly driven more with 7 and have a kick with an 8 loves to tell people my ideas, my soul explorations of self and others or sell a point and try to get them involved, awakened and excited as well. I think messenger archetype fits me to a -T- triple individualistic, innovative, CHANGE, not playing to the audience and straightforward! That is when my enneagram clicked actually, as I didn't feel -exactly- like a 4. I always have this need to communicate on the idea level, not for my own personal chit chat which is not the first thing you would observe of an INFP. I wouldn't claim to be charismatic personally but I have been told and I can see I can influence and lead groups of people, although it is not the case one on one, so I don't know in group settings I turn into a person that influences the group and I just think that people love to be led. Also I think why I share more of my 4 side here as opposed to real world. I am told that I am uncooperative as well and I can be really arrogant and assertive although I feel more vulnerable and soft underneath.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> @Entropic @Zamyatin @mushr00m
> 
> Well of course I don't think there will ever be a convincingly quantitative study about this or any patterns really but there is a pattern and not recognizing the pattern is almost nonsensical as buying every study claiming they have data.
> 
> I think there is a pattern, I mean I have been reading about narcissistic parents and how their children turn out to be and it sounds awfully like enneagram 4, so it is behavioral it is psychological and then there is MBTI or other systems and you could actually find a lot in common with both a narcissistic parent's child and enneagram 4


A problem with this is that narcissism isn't a personality disorder that is explicit or unique to any type system; Naranjo for example associates narcissism with type 7 and I can see arguments that fits type 3 as well, or 2, or any other type. The bottom-line is that narcissism isn't a personality disorder well explained by either cognition or the enneagram. 



> and a great majority of INFPs although there is no direct relation.


I doubt that correlation until I see some actual data on the subject as I see greater variance elsewhere than I do on typology boards.



> Or when I read about some article that says people that are not anxious have a certain DNA that people that have anxiety don't (very dominant in Fe or enneagram 6)


Anxiety isn't the same as being a type 6. Anyone can be anxious or develop anxiety.



> or when I notice how similar a writing on right/left dominant brain sounds to J/P difference.


The only one who's made that correlation somewhat, is Lenore Thomson, which goes very contrary to Nardi's findings. He for example sees Ni dominance as an explicit right-brain function, with almost no other involvement with the left brain. 



> I even read somewhere that around teenage years the parts of the brain goes through a change, feeding the parts used more than the others more and letting the other parts less blood, well I wouldn't bet on it or it is not that I buy the -science- but there is a pattern and it does kind of make sense as well, as I do believe during my teenage years I did go through a major Fi,


You already know what I think of your cognitive type. 



> call it growing up, being disappointed with the world, more experience but I wouldn't oppose to it. I was a very Fi-dom child too but you could easily confuse me with an INTP child, maybe it is the curiosity, maybe life was simpler. But yes I also see how this feeds one another and goes in a circular loop validating each other.


Personally, I really have a hard time being able to confuse you with an INTP lol, and I cannot envision myself to confuse you as an INTP as a child either. 



> I agree that an earlier understanding could play a great part. I feel like I have wasted my life already to be learning this today. It explains all my struggles and motivations that I can't fix. I don't know if I want to fix it either and I don't believe in telling my motivations to a stranger with a counseling degree and magically having myself fixed. Guess what? It is the same behavior a narcissistic parent's child would say? It felt too close home when I read it. I don't know, I equally take pride in being a 4 but when I see things analytically that explains why it doesn't fit in a real, pragmatic world and how it may come off to others.


In other words - you are simply trying to justify parts about yourself via type even though those parts are not meant to be explained via type. 



> edit: so yes the brain going through an alter at 14, I have read another reference today.
> There is also this I pointed out earlier on brain chemistry https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/the-enneagram-and-brain-chemistry/
> Also, I have been reading articles on childhood psychology and how it plays an effect on introversion, need to be isolated from others, hypersensitivity
> 
> just too much telling the same thing over and over, self validating perhaps but not really wise to ignore the pattern due to lack of data that can be validated, it probably will never be


People are prone to see patterns even when there are none, because humans are meaning-making creatures and our brains are naturally wired to try to find or see patterns in things e.g. all those pictures that were popular some years in the past with people thinking they've seen Jesus on pizzas, cheeses, whatnot. You should check your own bias first concerning that.



xForgottenOne said:


> Yeah, of course your MBTI and Enneagram have some kind of correlation. I'm a type 6, probably most common in xSFJs, but I think that my tritype (136) is a lot more common to be ISTJ.


Based on the data I've gathered, I've honesty not encountered such a thing at all. 6 seems to be one of the few types with no seemingly inherent bias whatsoever, regarding cognitive preferences. I also think that this is partially related to the fact that people are typing themselves more honestly as 6s though.


----------



## aurly (Jun 15, 2014)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 3) most of the INFP 4s you're talking to are indeed probably mistyped :tongue:


Almost everyone goes through a INFP 4 phase in their life, also known as "puberty" ;P


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 1) if there is cause and effect, there is a correlation
> 2) 2 things do not need to "meet in the middle from the same place" to be correlated. they simply need to influence each other in some capacity.
> 3) most of the INFP 4s you're talking to are indeed probably mistyped :tongue:


1)Yes the cause and effect is a type of correlation. But not an implicit one. 
2)You're talking about a type of correlation, there is more than one type.
3)not the main point.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Entropic



Entropic said:


> You already know what I think of your cognitive type.


Every time you say this I highly question your motivations and your Te preference. In the thread you were following someone had to dive in and literally test me and said I was consistent with my answers when you suggested him your ideas. Not that I needed it but because you keep dragging this over threads. 

In another you asked me for proof and for me to explain why I think my father is an ESFJ and I did write, you never answered. I wouldn't care if you literally didn't call out for me to write it explicitly but you did then you decided not to comment on that. You should sincerely check the other posters finding the talk funny, since you care so much to talk to me in 3rd person.

So every time you throw this in -just because- I roll my eyes, not because I need your validation or asked for it but because I think it is getting very immature.

We obviously have a *communication *problem as well. 



Entropic said:


> A problem with this is that narcissism isn't a personality disorder that is explicit or unique to any type system; Naranjo for example associates narcissism with type 7 and I can see arguments that fits type 3 as well, or 2, or any other type. The bottom-line is that narcissism isn't a personality disorder well explained by either cognition or the enneagram.


I have* NOT *said anything at all about the enneagram of narcissistic people. I was talking about a child raised by one THE WHOLE TIME. So I have no idea why you show little effort to understand but a great deal of it to oppose.* Then again you have confused me with someone else on that thread for pages and ended up labeling me on her words anyway* and a ridiculous keyword I have used (which is funny because you think you can label me over one word when you don't get my whole paragraph) and even telling me off to mention you and brought you back in the topic when -she- did. You just decided your label applies anyway. 



Entropic said:


> Personally, I really have a hard time being able to confuse you with an INTP lol, and I cannot envision myself to confuse you as an INTP as a child either.


Yes please thanks your overall attitude obviously means so much, perhaps I should exchange my childhood experience over this. Perhaps I should change my field of study while I am at it. I never claimed to be one, I was lightheartedly making a comment on my appearance to strangers. To be honest it is really difficult to believe you are not a feeler with tertiary Ti when you make everything so personal and see it as a chance to input your opinion anyway in the most nonsensical ways. I have a problem with seeing you as a thinker and especially an extroverted one but I am not claiming this in every other thread as I believe it would be ridiculous.



Entropic said:


> In other words - you are simply trying to justify parts about yourself via type even though those parts are not meant to be explained via type.


Is this a comment you have come up with or is it a restatement of what I wrote already? I have laid all my cards as is on my mind and I told you yes I can see that view as well. 



Entropic said:


> You should check your own bias first concerning that.


Well reducing this to seeing jesus on a pizza will naturally rule out any further topic. You are being very arbitrary what to discuss, you are quick to reduce things to seeing jesus on pizza when you don't want to discuss. Well if you want to keep at that level, this whole forum is based on seeing jesus on pizza.

Truth be told since you refuse scientific reasoning leading to experiments and theoretical and hypothetical reasoning that has led to many scientific discoveries and proof, as you have struggled so much to see how proof by contrast works I won't be repeating myself. Although I wasn't exactly defending the relationship but favoring the idea that there are too much occurrence whether you call it this and that whether they keep validating each other in a loop, it wouldn't be wise to dismiss it altogether. I really can't grasp your ground, you declare anything that can not be validated through data as seeing jesus on pizza then you hold on blindly on theories you have picked which are built like building blocks with no data other than a person's observations.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> @Entropic
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you understand why we do have a communication problem? Likely caused by differences in cognition and no, I don't think that difference is because of Ne-Si vs Ni-Se. I simply stated my opinion on this because I thought it was relevant to bring it up because you are implicitly justifying a connection between type 4 and Fi using your self as a self-referential point. It is therefore tantamount to point out that perhaps, this connection is not true at all in a theoretical sense, because you, at least from my perspective, seems to misunderstand what MBTI Fi is really about and what it is as a cognitive preference. To therefore use yourself as the basis to suggest this correlation is therefore inherently flawed from the very start. 

Because I know we've had that discussion about your type before, I chose to simply comment on that you may be falling into a personal bias without wanting to per se making it a discussion again, by making clear to you that my opinion on the matter remains unchanged and I simply wanted you to become aware of the fact. 

I also do not believe in that one can be an Fe type socionics and Fi type in the MBTI, but that's an aside, though I think it is an important one in relation to this comment here. 



> I have* NOT *said anything at all about the enneagram of narcissistic people.


So let's go back what you wrote:



> I mean I have been reading about narcissistic parents and how their children turn out to be and it sounds awfully like enneagram 4


Here you are already implicitly stating that you think there is a pattern or a correlation between type 4 and narcissism. Do you say it explicitly? No. Is the pattern implied to be there? Yes. 



> I was talking about a child raised by one THE WHOLE TIME. So I have no idea why you show little effort to understand but a great deal of it to oppose.* Then again you have confused me with someone else on that thread for pages and ended up labeling me on her words anyway* and a ridiculous keyword I have used (which is funny because you think you can label me over one word when you don't get my whole paragraph) and even telling me off to mention you and brought you back in the topic when -she- did. You just decided your label applies anyway.


With that said, yes, I partially misunderstood what you wrote initially as I thought you were suggesting that there is a correlation between narcissism and type 4 in that there is something about type 4 that is narcissist, but the point I made previously about suggesting that there is a pattern remains. 



> Yes please thanks your overall attitude obviously means so much, perhaps I should exchange my childhood experience over this. Perhaps I should change my field of study while I am at it. I never claimed to be one, I was lightheartedly making a comment on my appearance to strangers. To be honest it is really difficult to believe you are not a feeler with tertiary Ti when you make everything so personal and see it as a chance to input your opinion anyway in the most nonsensical ways. I have a problem with seeing you as a thinker and especially an extroverted one but I am not claiming this in every other thread as I believe it would be ridiculous.


Do you even understand what it means to reason with Ti as a preferred cognitive process? Please. Furthermore, you are the one who is reacting emotionally here, not I. I was having a disagreement with you, a logical one, based on scientific methodology, approach and vigor, and I took issue with some of your conclusions on a logical basis. You are the one who is pulling a drama stunt about how I'm making this personal. Apparently I can't even reference back to previous exchanges we've had without making it personal. 



> Is this a comment you have come up with or is it a restatement of what I wrote already? I have laid all my cards as is on my mind and I told you yes I can see that view as well.
> 
> 
> Well reducing this to seeing jesus on a pizza will naturally rule out any further topic. You are being very arbitrary what to discuss, you are quick to reduce things to seeing jesus on pizza when you don't want to discuss. Well if you want to keep at that level, this whole forum is based on seeing jesus on pizza.


lol, you are being erratic. I never once implied to reduce this entire forum to seeing Jesus on a pizza. However, the point that humans often want to attribute things to a pattern even when there is one is still very important when it comes to typology, because people constantly attempt to justify the tiniest of details in their personality cuz type, even when it lies well outside the scope of what the type can explain about you. A type has a very clear framework of what phenomena it can operate with to explain, and people often forget that. 



> Truth be told since you refuse scientific reasoning leading to experiments and theoretical and hypothetical reasoning that has led to many scientific discoveries and proof as you have struggled so much to see how proof by contrast works I won't be repeating myself.


What? If anything, this criticism applies more so to you than it does I. I was the one who initially questioned your claims based on scientific reasoning, especially that of positivism, and I want to bring more scientific rigor when it comes to understanding these correlations. You're the one who is dismissing it in favor of the patterns that you perceive and pay and care very little for methodology involved and therein lies much of our initial disagreement. You insist that the patterns are real because you've observed them and when I bring up the issue that perhaps they are not so because how do you know these patterns do not exist due to cognitive bias or poor methodology, you brush it aside by claiming that you still think the observable patterns are relevant. Relevant how so? How do you know it is a real pattern outside of you cognitively deeming them to be so? Science is very much about questioning our understanding and questioning what we think we know. 



> Although I wasn't exactly defending the relationship but favoring the idea that there are too much occurrence whether you call it this and that whether they keep validating each other in a loop that it wouldn't be wise to dismiss it altogether. I really can't grasp your ground, you declare anything that can not be validated through data as seeing jesus on pizza then you hold on blindly on theories you have picked which are built like building blocks with no data other than a person's observations.


And I think one should hold more and greater levels of skepticism than that, or you'll likely end up in a feedback loop which becomes circular which is what we often see around these forums e.g. Fi is defined such a way that sounds like type 4, a lot of 4s are also Fi types, 4 sounds a lot like Fi types, therefore Fi is defined in a way that sounds like type 4. That's extremely flawed and needs to be properly examined. 

I can't help you if you can't grasp the deductive process of my reasoning, tbh. I think I'm very clear on what I think and the logical flow of process of what I state, here.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Do you understand why we do have a communication problem? Likely caused by differences in cognition and no, I don't think that difference is because of Ne-Si vs Ni-Se.


I partially agree with your -suggestion- My communication with you does not sound anything like Te and Se but I wouldn't cross out Ti being reflected with Fe-Se. 

And no, the communication fails primarily because you misunderstand my words, sentences and paragraphs and even confuse me with another person. It is quite an objective statement, I wouldn't go far to relate it to cognitive functions and if I did I would focus on the extroverted functions and loops first.
You should also know that your communication style also plays a part in waking a super-ego response. But again I don't think it is wise to look further when we trip over words in their most literal and objective form and fail to communicate. I do give people the benefit of doubt as I am not a native speaker but this is happening far too frequent with you and I do think my paragraph all over was clear, or that people should double check when they are referring to a person thinking they are another, just my two cents.




Entropic said:


> Do you even understand what it means to reason with Ti as a preferred cognitive process? Please.


No I don't, not as a user. That is why I never said I was/am INTP. I did say it light-heartedly as a comment, I never thought I was a Ti-dom but the shared Ne in children can be ridiculously similar to an observer that is not close. I just happened to discover science was fun as it tickled my Ne and perhaps satisfied my Te aspiration. I wrote my first script on a second hand commodore at 6, I tried to freeze a fly in a tiny toy house box and bring it back to life (and yes cried when it didn't), I got excited over science museum visits and kept reading encyclopedias and picked apart things to see or asked about how they work that I find to be very -seemingly- INTP-ish but no I was just a curious child with Ne. My inner world, my feelings and my interactions with others were never like an INTP. I don't think I am entitled to explain everything I say in a scientific way when it is obvious that I did not make a statement. And yes I do find the study of the brain losing the density of the neurons of the parts that are not as much used as the dominant regions after the age of 14 quite relevant, does it make the universal truth? No. Is it wise to dismiss the possibility of the relation with cognitive functions? I don't think so. I do believe despite being a Fi-dom I was much more in touch with -thinking- before this age although it never played a part in my personality but kept me in a field of study that is most naturally fit to Ti-doms.

To think about it, I do think if I -were- an INTP my response to my narcissistic parent could be much less irrational and emotional and I could have ended up being another type but a 4. This is not me trying to validate myself, asking for validation or making a statement but me sharing my thought process on the go and no, I did not feel you were having a -disagreement- with me as I do not have the claim mentioned in my original post. I just wanted to discuss it, so no I didn't feel -offended- or -disagreed with-





Entropic said:


> Furthermore, you are the one who is reacting emotionally here, not I. I was having a disagreement with you, a logical one, based on scientific methodology, approach and vigor, and I took issue with some of your conclusions on a logical basis. You are the one who is pulling a drama stunt about how I'm making this personal. Apparently I can't even reference back to previous exchanges we've had without making it personal.


You are making this personal, when you feel the need to keep posting about my functions which you believe to be. You did have your call in one of those threads despite the 3rd person views and objective disagreements or when you actually called me out to explain my reasoning but did not reply when I did. So I don't see the point in your personal -drop by- statements going nowhere, refusing to go anywhere but running in place. I find this to be very irrational despite the claimed -logical- aspiration in your posts. 



Entropic said:


> Apparently I can't even reference back to previous exchanges we've had without making it personal.


I wish you did actually, I don't care enough to make this a deal but I think it could help you seeing how subjective your -truth- is. I honestly don't know how confusing one person over the other but insisting on their type anyway is not conflicting to your -logical- and data backed up aspirations you look for in every post. 



Entropic said:


> What? If anything, this criticism applies more so to you than it does


I was actually referring to a previous discussion where I was trying to explain to you that you could pick a hypothetical thesis and use it to disprove a theory. So no, on the contrary to what you think or on the contrary to -theory- worshippers I don't favor one over discussion and reasoning.




Entropic said:


> How do you know it is a real pattern outside of you cognitively deeming them to be so?


How do you know the theory is the truth? Especially when it is subjectively written based on personal interactions and observations and lacks validation and will perhaps ever lack validation. I brought you a study of collective of people, that were unbiased about the theory and the scientific reasoning behind the study and you refused the information because you did not pay attention or understood the reasoning and how it actually is used to show the theories are not the ultimate truth which otherwise can not be explained. You can build any theory if you base it on accepted elements, such as cognitive functions and noone will ever be able to disprove your theory by following your theory, so it is actually more stuck in itself than you think and a collective observation findings could be closer to truth rather than that theory. 



Entropic said:


> I can't help you if you can't grasp the deductive process of my reasoning, tbh. I think I'm very clear on what I think and the logical flow of process of what I state, here.


I did understand your initial post and I did not quite oppose it, I didn't even support the claim, not even in my initial post. I want to discuss and I can do so even when my stance is clear, I can push it aside and discuss multiple views. Just because I don't leave things at where you concluded does not mean I don't grasp your post. Your later post however, is quite far from reasoning and logical flow, it actually is very subjective, irrational and have clear wrong statements and claims made based on those wrong statements. I don't know why me entertaining views always sets up a base for and fosters personal and subjective statements.


----------



## aurly (Jun 15, 2014)

nichya said:


> To think about it, I do think if I -were- an INTP my response to my narcissistic parent could be much less irrational and emotional and I could have ended up being another type but a 4.


You're born as your type though. How you end up expressing it is for the most part nurture, but your core, is nature, it does not change. Try it, and you will see.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

aurly said:


> You're born as your type though. How you end up expressing it is for the most part nurture, but your core, is nature, it does not change. Try it, and you will see.


Well it is not like you are born as your type is a scientific fact so I don't know how you make that statement with so much confidence, there is work on active and most used parts of the brain but there is no specific and accepted correlation known to exist between cognitive functions and brain regions.

And if you go over the sentence I have used, it IS based on the reasoning that my expression is tied to the type I am born with.

I always thought we are just born with our dominant and inferior functions, again as I have also stated in my previous posts I believe there is loose evidence of neuroscience and even DNA but recently the childhood motivations of the enneagrams are making me hesitate about the situation, so I am not entirely sure to be so definite. I think cognitive functions play a part in how the children respond to their surrounding and parents but also the latter seems to make the ties stronger.

I do think of my childhood as a happy, ideal state and that I will never feel so much bliss again -despite- my problems that have caused me be a 4. I do think it is due to the ability of Ne and creating imagery and isolating from the real world opening the way to your imagination. I was a happy child overall. Only today I am realizing that my motivations rooted back then is not an absolute stage you go through. Looking back I had very strong signs which are actually quite unpleasant for a child. Most INFJs I meet don't particularly have a positive view about their childhood, I do think it is cognitive functions play a part but the nurture plays a great part in defining them or making them more emphasized or marginalized.


----------



## aurly (Jun 15, 2014)

nichya said:


> And if you go over the sentence I have used, it IS based on the reasoning that my expression is tied to the type I am born with.


I did slightly misread it but thanks for sharing your point of view. Knowing people's beliefs helps understanding.


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

My 2nd and 3rd types are 8w7 and 5w4. Wouldn't that make me an ENTJ or something like that?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Sounds like a rubbish study.


----------



## aurly (Jun 15, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Sounds like a rubbish study.


I love 8s <3


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

nichya said:


> I partially agree with your -suggestion- My communication with you does not sound anything like Te and Se but I wouldn't cross out Ti being reflected with Fe-Se.


lol. I hope do you realize that your attempt to type me says more about your understanding of the theory here, and how it's inaccurate, than it reflects whether we have an ability to communicate or not. Again, you don't seem to know what any of these functions mean or are like, so any type suggestion you'd offer me in this regard is very moot. Any person with some basic understanding would know this. 



> And no, the communication fails primarily because you misunderstand my words, sentences and paragraphs and even confuse me with another person.


No, our communication fails because you keep bringing up things irrelevant to what is happening in this thread. Am I confusing you with someone else in here? No, I'm not. I don't think my problem is my ability to understand you or not, but that you are harping over things with absolutely no bearing on what is actually going on in order to justify yourself, pulling drama stunts like these. 



> It is quite an objective statement, I wouldn't go far to relate it to cognitive functions and if I did I would focus on the extroverted functions and loops first.


You, being objective? That's quite funny tbh. Also the loop theory is bunk, but that's for another thread. 



> You should also know that your communication style also plays a part in waking a super-ego response. But again I don't think it is wise to look further when we trip over words in their most literal and objective form and fail to communicate. I do give people the benefit of doubt as I am not a native speaker but this is happening far too frequent with you and I do think my paragraph all over was clear, or that people should double check when they are referring to a person thinking they are another, just my two cents.


AGAIN, my communication with you in this very thread, has absolutely nothing to do with what happened in the past. So stop harp over the past and stop equal what happened in the past with what is happening in the present. These events are entirely separate and not the same. If you want to give people the benefit of the doubt, stop compare to what was in the past with what is happening now and see the present objectively without subjective bias. If you cannot do that, you are not giving people the benefit of the doubt, since all your perception of what is going on is clouded by the past. Get rid of the fucking past already and move on. I don't sit and harp over wtf you did or didn't in the past and I certainly don't let it stop my interaction with you because I am judging how you are like in the present moment. If I didn't, I would have chosen to ignore you period, because I would already assume that the past would be repeated. So please, if you want to give me some kind of benefit of the doubt, stop fucking compare to what was to what is and then make claims that what is going in now is exactly the same to what was when nothing of the sort is happening. 



> No I don't, not as a user. That is why I never said I was/am INTP. I did say it light-heartedly as a comment, I never thought I was a Ti-dom but the shared Ne in children can be ridiculously similar to an observer that is not close. I just happened to discover science was fun as it tickled my Ne and perhaps satisfied my Te aspiration. I wrote my first script on a second hand commodore at 6, I tried to freeze a fly in a tiny toy house box and bring it back to life (and yes cried when it didn't), I got excited over science museum visits and kept reading encyclopedias and picked apart things to see or asked about how they work that I find to be very -seemingly- INTP-ish but no I was just a curious child with Ne. My inner world, my feelings and my interactions with others were never like an INTP. I don't think I am entitled to explain everything I say in a scientific way when it is obvious that I did not make a statement. And yes I do find the study of the brain losing the density of the neurons of the parts that are not as much used as the dominant regions after the age of 14 quite relevant, does it make the universal truth? No. Is it wise to dismiss the possibility of the relation with cognitive functions? I don't think so. I do believe despite being a Fi-dom I was much more in touch with -thinking- before this age although it never played a part in my personality but kept me in a field of study that is most naturally fit to Ti-doms.
> 
> To think about it, I do think if I -were- an INTP my response to my narcissistic parent could be much less irrational and emotional and I could have ended up being another type but a 4. This is not me trying to validate myself, asking for validation or making a statement but me sharing my thought process on the go and no, I did not feel you were having a -disagreement- with me as I do not have the claim mentioned in my original post. I just wanted to discuss it, so no I didn't feel -offended- or -disagreed with-


From a functional perspective, this entire paragraph is quite ironic given what you open it with. You essentially admit to actually using Ti in it, because you are drawn to what you identify as Ti activities, and yet you refuse to admit you actually use or enjoy Ti. I never suggested you were an INTP, but you know, Fe types have Ti too. The kind of Fe type you are accusing me to be though I'm arguably one of the most Fi INTJs you'll ever run into. If you actually got a grasp of the functions and their basic definitions, you'd realize the difference between Fi and Fe as cognitive processes and furthermore, because I am _not_ a Ti type, I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass trying to sort out that mess for you. An INTP can go ahead and do that because they enjoy that shit. 



> You are making this personal, when you feel the need to keep posting about my functions which you believe to be. You did have your call in one of those threads despite the 3rd person views and objective disagreements or when you actually called me out to explain my reasoning but did not reply when I did. So I don't see the point in your personal -drop by- statements going nowhere, refusing to go anywhere but running in place. I find this to be very irrational despite the claimed -logical- aspiration in your posts.


LOL, no I am not. _You_ are the one who took it personally, though. I explained why I did what I did, I did it rather extensively actually, and if you cannot understand and make the distinction between making a simple factual claim referring to past communication and not imply any more than that and thinking it's a personal offense, that is entirely your problem, not mine. If you cannot understand that I did not intend it in any other way than what I've suggested that it was meant to intend, again, that is your problem, not mine. 

And to be honest, that wall of text you wrote, what exactly did you expect people to comment on it? I could barely read through it. 

The claim that I am also the one not going anywhere is highly ironic, because you are the one who is _stuck_ here, not I, stuck in the past, that is. You could have chosen to simply proceed by addressing my claims logically instead of taking personal offense and think that I am making this personal. No, it is your drama that is making this personal because you cannot make the distinction that I did not imply anything personal with what I did and you can't even take me for the word when I explain what I mean to you by it. It is your self-absorption that is being obstructive in this entire exchange. I mean, look at you. What does that entire paragraph about your supposed childhood and how you were so interested in Ne and Ti activities have anything to do with this? And that's the thing - it doesn't. It has zero to do with the subject matter but you keep dragging in whatever the cat left at the front door even when it is better left there, and then you accuse me that I am the one doing it. No, please look at yourself first and evaluate your own behavior before you accuse me of doing anything more than seeking to have an intellectual exchange on the matter. I already explained to you that I misread one of your paragraphs but my primary contention as to why I disagree with you, still holds true. If you cannot move on past that, again, that is not on me but on you. 



> I wish you did actually, I don't care enough to make this a deal but I think it could help you seeing how subjective your -truth- is. I honestly don't know how confusing one person over the other but insisting on their type anyway is not conflicting to your -logical- and data backed up aspirations you look for in every post.


You _are_ making this a big fucking deal by being dramatic about it. Stop. Also, really, you accuse me of having subjective "truths"? Who is it that is arguing for standardization of methodology here? Certainly not you. I am seeking to quantify a qualitative field. You haven't expressed that you actually give a damn about the actual methodology involved over simply wanting to "consider the possibility of connections". 

And again, stop reference to an event that is entirely irrelevant to what is going on in this thread in order to backpeddle and place blame on something I did not do, because you are feeling victimized. You are not a fucking victim of some crude horrific communication problem where you are subject to some kind of mental abuse because all I did was referencing to past communication. Look outside your own bubble for a second and actually bother to connect with the rest of the people. 



> I was actually referring to a previous discussion where I was trying to explain to you that you could pick a hypothetical thesis and use it to disprove a theory. So no, on the contrary to what you think or on the contrary to -theory- worshippers I don't favor one over discussion and reasoning.


To be perfectly honest, all I get from you is that you aren't interested in actually discussing how to quantify the theory at all, as much as you simply want to "consider the possibilities" for their own sake which, to me, is a utterly pointless endeavor and activity and you really do not accept disagreement on the matter. Good luck with that. It certainly won't lead to pushing forward new paradigms of thought or improving this field, I will tell you that. 



> How do you know the theory is the truth? Especially when it is subjectively written based on personal interactions and observations and lacks validation and will perhaps ever lack validation. I brought you a study of collective of people, that were unbiased about the theory and the scientific reasoning behind the study and you refused the information because you did not pay attention or understood the reasoning and how it actually is used to show the theories are not the ultimate truth which otherwise can not be explained. You can build any theory if you base it on accepted elements, such as cognitive functions and noone will ever be able to disprove your theory by following your theory, so it is actually more stuck in itself than you think and a collective observation findings could be closer to truth rather than that theory.


lol, we operate with a basic framework that at this point in time, is built upon anecdotal evidence to validate the claims made. As such, the theory is exactly that, a theory, and we can validate it via stating it as a hypothesis and go out and actually test it in real time via various means such as quantitative studies as the one the Fauvres did. The problem with that study is their lack of scientific rigor which is the one primary criticism I've been stating all along. We do not of course know whether the enneagram is "true", though that is a ridiculous assertion to make in the first place, because "true" makes it seem as if you are looking at it to exist at an essential level as if it would intrinsically exist. There is no such thing. Rather, the enneagram, as other personality theories, take a cluster of traits and personality qualities and group these under the definition of a "type". Qualities and traits that all people possess to varying degrees. As such, it is true and exists because the traits and qualities are intrinsic to human beings in general and is put into a logical framework to distinguish where certain traits and qualities are more dominating in a group of individuals over other groups in order to fit the definition of "type". 

Don't project your own shoddy inability to reason on me, making claims about circularity. Falling prey to circular reasoning is also decidedly a Ti thing. I don't do that. I don't make frameworks for the same of frameworks and assume them to be sound in and of itself because they lack connections with the external world. A good framework is adapted to the phenomena which it seeks to explain, not the other way around. 



> I did understand your initial post and I did not quite oppose it, I didn't even support the claim, not even in my initial post. I want to discuss and I can do so even when my stance is clear, I can push it aside and discuss multiple views. Just because I don't leave things at where you concluded does not mean I don't grasp your post. Your later post however, is quite far from reasoning and logical flow, it actually is very subjective, irrational and have clear wrong statements and claims made based on those wrong statements. I don't know why me entertaining views always sets up a base for and fosters personal and subjective statements.


No, you clearly did not, because if you did, you wouldn't pull this drama stunt on me and because you are unable to actually meet my claims, spend more time trying to type me and yourself than actually offer logical refutations on the matter. 

I'm done. Respond however you want because I don't give more of a fuck for this. Engage me when you are able to think rationally about the matter and are capable of dissociating past experience from the present moment and when you can view and understand things objectively as they are, without the veil of existing prejudice and yet claim you are giving people the benefit of the doubt. I couldn't give a shit.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

@Entropic 

Obviously you are the one that brings up a past -irrelevant- conversations and derail every other thread, it is entertaining at best then how you try to make me the one who does. 

"between making a simple factual claim referring to past communication and not imply any more than that and thinking it's a personal offense, that is entirely your problem, not mine."

What you call as -factual claim- was undermined by another person testing my dominant functions, you brought up your idea and he said I was consistent then you left it there, in another thread you explicitly called me out to explain my reasoning of typing my dad, I did and you never answered.

_So what is your aim in dropping by and making use of every chance to bring that up exactly?_

I did mention your habit of not paying attention enough to understand a paragraph or knowing who you are referring to to point out the communication flow. It seems to be more than an occurrence but a character trait. What's worse is that even when you are pointed out, you keep holding on your view and tone and think it applies anyway. Making it impossible to have an unbiased talk.






Entropic said:


> From a functional perspective, this entire paragraph is quite ironic given what you open it with. You essentially admit to actually using Ti in it, because you are drawn to what you identify as Ti activities, and yet you refuse to admit you actually use or enjoy Ti.


I opened that talk saying - you would THINK I am one because I did enjoy what INTPs enjoy stereo-typically - with full awareness this does not equal to being a Ti user nor those activities are Ti activities in my view. Again, I just love how you miss the elephant in the room or simply are not able to keep up with the posts in a range. For me these activities meant awe, explorations, new. 




Entropic said:


> I never suggested you were an INTP, but you know, Fe types have Ti too. The kind of Fe type you are accusing me to be though I'm arguably one of the most Fi INTJs you'll ever run into. If you actually got a grasp of the functions and their basic definitions, you'd realize the difference between Fi and Fe as cognitive processes and furthermore, because I am not a Ti type, I honestly couldn't give a rat's ass trying to sort out that mess for you.


I was just being annoying on purpose mirroring your actions, thank you  I am well able to realize the difference between Fi and Fe as cognitive processes, again thank you. I don't know who you are, I haven't been observing you and I don't believe we have enough communication in a natural state so I had no intention typing you and I don't care to. 

Well one thing though, it is really difficult to see the Te when you go lengths obsessing over keywords or details you fetch and miss the entire picture, or your writing full of subjective statements, insults which I also find irrational. Indeed my interactions with INTJs never take this form. Other than that made up obsession over data validation aspiration I don't see much but it is not like I am looking. I know this super-ego waking exchange of responses are no more than your 8 nature, so I don't care to look further.


I think when you have your objective goggles you can check your own writing to see who keeps bringing up past conversations and make unrelated comments and derail the thread when you feel like your view is disagreed with or when people won't leave things at where you left them. Is this kind of an 8 overcompensation? Then you use your you don't seem to know what functions mean card when you are missing how painful rather than ridiculous it is to watch you try to type me.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> My 2nd and 3rd types are 8w7 and 5w4. Wouldn't that make me an ENTJ or something like that?


For the archetypes isn't the order 457? Following your core then in a clock wise whatever department follows next such as 4-heart, 5-mind and 8-gut?

Well I don't buy the study anyway, just wanted to discuss. Loosely and statistically, 7 is more of signature fix of ENFPs, I know I am an introvert in the Jungian sense even though my Ne comes up pretty high and I get ENFP at times, also my Te inferior is too obvious.

I am thinking though there must be a precondition to their claim at least but they didn't include it in their short post about it.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

nichya said:


> Enneagram Global Summit have just posted: " We revealed the first results from a survey correlating Enneagram Type, Tritype, Instinct and MBTI. The early statistical analysis suggests strongly that MBTI is influenced by the 2nd and 3rd types in your Tritype. For example although most 4s are INFPs, a 415 is likely to be an INFJ. So Tritype may explain why people of the same dominant Enneagram Type sometimes have different MBTI types. "
> 
> So  Discuss.
> 
> ...


Where's the god damn fucking link so we could read for ourselves?


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Where's the god damn fucking link so we could read for ourselves?


lol, It is just a facebook post, they might have more information now on their website although I can't see at a glance, I think it was live from the summit.

"Greatly enjoyed presenting with Katherine at the online Enneagram Global Summit this afternoon. We revealed the first results from a survey correlating Enneagram Type, Tritype, Instinct and MBTI. The early statistical analysis suggests strongly that MBTI is influenced by the 2nd and 3rd types in your Tritype. For example although most 4s are INFPs, a 415 is likely to be an INFJ. So Tritype may explain why people of the same dominant Enneagram Type sometimes have different MBTI types. Thank you to Jessica as our wonderful host! https://shiftnetwork.isrefer.com/go/egs15KF/DFauvre/ "


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

nichya said:


> lol, It is just a facebook post, they might have more information now on their website although I can't see at a glance, I think it was live from the summit.
> 
> "Greatly enjoyed presenting with Katherine at the online Enneagram Global Summit this afternoon. We revealed the first results from a survey correlating Enneagram Type, Tritype, Instinct and MBTI. The early statistical analysis suggests strongly that MBTI is influenced by the 2nd and 3rd types in your Tritype. For example although most 4s are INFPs, a 415 is likely to be an INFJ. So Tritype may explain why people of the same dominant Enneagram Type sometimes have different MBTI types. Thank you to Jessica as our wonderful host! https://shiftnetwork.isrefer.com/go/egs15KF/DFauvre/ "


Aha I see. Thanks!


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

nichya said:


> For the archetypes isn't the order 457? Following your core then in a clock wise whatever department follows next such as 4-heart, 5-mind and 8-gut?
> 
> Well I don't buy the study anyway, just wanted to discuss. Loosely and statistically, 7 is more of signature fix of ENFPs, I know I am an introvert in the Jungian sense even though my Ne comes up pretty high and I get ENFP at times, also my Te inferior is too obvious.
> 
> I am thinking though there must be a precondition to their claim at least but they didn't include it in their short post about it.


What does this have to do with what I said?


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Tetsuo Shima said:


> What does this have to do with what I said?


That you are missing the 5 or the tritype as a single entity, so it is not exactly the -8- which you referred to as ENTJ


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

nichya said:


> That you are missing the 5 or the tritype as a single entity, so it is not exactly the -8- which you referred to as ENTJ


Umm... what? I was referring to the 8_w7_ _and_ the 5w4.


----------

