# 5w6 Discussion



## brinstar1994 (9 mo ago)

Still learning about this type. Anything that is informative or educational would be helpful. Rare facts that don't normally get discussed could make this more than just another 5w6 thread. Are the stereotypical depictions of 5w6 accurate or an exaggeration?


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

Hi brintstart. It could be useful to say what kind of description your have in mind, maybe post a few links to some of them. Type 5 and 5w6 are described quite differently depending on sources.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

It's good that you asked that because, yes, there is a big problem with popular descriptions of 5w6. 
I think a lot of them miss the point entirely.

They declare 5w6 as this intellectual big-brain genius who accumulates knowledge and who wants to _actually understand _stuff. As if becoming 5w6 increases your IQ by 30 points and makes you very curious and scientific.

No. None of the above. 5w6 isn't about having some unique special abilities.
The only "special powers" that the 5w6 type gives you are deep anxiety, the perpetual feeling of inadequacy, and insecurity.

When you are 5w6, you are scared of fucking up, of being unable to handle something, and becoming worthless and useless. It is not about being "intellectual." You are more likely to become a pseudo-intellectual if anything, develop some sort of image for defense purposes.

5w6 doesn't make you love learning by itself or interested in science. Knowledge or anything is accumulated out of this fear and anxiety, out of the belief that if you don't do that, you will probably mess up miserably. And it is never enough.


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

I concur with @Allostasis. Lots of people assume that being a 5w6 in general just means you are intelligent. All it really means, is that you have a tendency to horde resources (such as time, attention, energy, etc) because you have a misguided view that external situations demands too much, and that you need to isolate. You also have insecurities towards competency, and want to be good at everything without making mistakes. Of course, that's really not how life works.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> It's good that you asked that because, yes, there is a big problem with popular descriptions of 5w6.
> I think a lot of them miss the point entirely.
> 
> They declare 5w6 as this intellectual big-brain genius who accumulates knowledge and who wants to _actually understand _stuff. As if becoming 5w6 increases your IQ by 30 points and makes you very curious and scientific.
> ...


Then you grow up and realize there's no reason to be so damn anxious and just let things happen and adapt to them as they come. That's what my knowledge is good for: Allowing me to adapt on the fly. I only tend to get anxious when I am in an unfamiliar place and I don't know the lay of the land.


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

And this accumulation of knowledge, leads to a practice of accumulating. One is more likely to work their brain, and practicing working your brain increases one's likeliness of testing higher on an IQ test.

So it will go full circle.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

brinstar1994 said:


> Still learning about this type. Anything that is informative or educational would be helpful. Rare facts that don't normally get discussed could make this more than just another 5w6 thread. Are the stereotypical depictions of 5w6 accurate or an exaggeration?


I would say just like anything, there's a curve involved. There are some 5s that are extremely withdrawn, shy, and introverted, and there are some 5s who are more active and social than generally is expected. As an extroverted/social 5, I tend to be okay with social gatherings as long as I know I have the option to leave whenever I choose. I prefer a small circle of friends to a very large one. I like to mix and max interactions and learn as many different perspectives as I can. I like to look at ideas and thoughts from as many angles as I can. Accumulating knowledge and being able to use it in order to be adaptable is part of my overall strategy. 

I've made my peace with perfectionism. I'm not perfect. I have flaws. I just keep the attitude that if I am truly always learning that means I have to allow myself to make mistakes because a lot of the time, that's the best way to learn not to make the same one twice. If I thought I was always right, or decided never to try because I might fuck up, then I'm depriving myself of valuable learning experiences. So I do my best to be efficient prepared, and observant. I have established routines and rules where I think they are prudent, and fly by the seat of my pants where I think I can get away with it. It's a balance thing. We are all of us wondrous bundles of contradiction. If we do the best we can with what we have as much as possible every day, then we're probably going to be better than okay. In the end, I don't have to know everything, I just have to know where to look it up!


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

secondpassing said:


> And this accumulation of knowledge, leads to a practice of accumulating. One is more likely to work their brain, and practicing working your brain increases one's likeliness of testing higher on an IQ test.
> 
> So it will go full circle.


Naturally, one who is more motivated in doing something is more likely to do this certain something.

However, for many people, this leads to the erroneous conclusion about some special relationship between E5 and intelligence, which, I think, is important to disassemble. 

Any resource can be the subject of accumulation, while the criterion of successful accumulation doesn't always specify anything about the quality of the content's integration. Dull memorization of disconnected facts at times is enough to satiate hunger.

Furthermore, while E5s aren't inherently anti-intellectual, and some can even live up to their stereotypes, it is helpful to put them into perspective. Intelligence, in this day and age, is power.
A universal power that positively contributes to virtually any possible enterprise. It doesn't take that much imagination to see how every other type might get just as interested in nurturing their minds, in their own fashion.
And there is nothing that tells that they will be in any way less successful in doing so than E5s.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> In the end, I don't have to know everything, I just have to know where to look it up!


When I used to teach computer students I would generally give open book hands-on tests. I didn't want the students memorizing information but knowing how to reference and apply it by adapting it to the specific situation at hand.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> However, for many people, this leads to the erroneous conclusion about some special relationship between E5 and intelligence, which, I think, is important to disassemble.





> It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.
> - Albert Einstein


There can be an obsessiveness about playing with the pieces in your mind until they come together and make sense.

On the high end it can lead to someone like Einstein. On the low end it can lead to someone like the Unabomber.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

enneathusiast said:


> There can be an obsessiveness about playing with the pieces in your mind until they come together and make sense.
> 
> On the high end it can lead to someone like Einstein. On the low end it can lead to someone like the Unabomber.


Yeah, unsurprisingly, people tend to spend time to understand something when it doesn't come to them immediately..
I don't see how it adds to or subtracts from what I said though.

Unless you are foolish enough to suggest that E5s have some very unique and very special ability to be motivated enough to reach the bottom of things. Or have some mental superpower that allows them to play with pieces in their very unique brilliant minds.


----------



## 558663 (Aug 9, 2020)

The Enneagram is based on fears and motivations. In the case of the Five, it is a fear that the outside world is scary and uncomfortable, that it will harm you if you are not capable enough, and that it demands too much out of you. Thus, there is a great fear that you will inevitably screw up and be left helpless if you do not know and have enough. 

To deal with this fear, Fives justify that they must prepare themselves and collect more information about the situation that provoked this fear, time, energy, and other resources that may be needed to become competent. Often, Fives will stay in this collection/hoarding stage for too long out of the fear that they are not prepared and not capable enough. There is a persistent feeling that it will never be enough, all the efforts of preparation are never enough to deal with reality, and that harm is inevitable. This will manifest as a delay in action, sometimes never even acting at all.

I should also mention that this fear pervades all of the Five's reality. This includes mundane matters like interactions with other people (including friends), knowing which bus to take during your commute (after many hours of research), and more everyday life situations. It is not exclusive to intellectual matters only.

I would like to stress that the accumulation of knowledge and other resources is a tool to address this fear of being inadequate, not the primary characteristic of the Five nor this tool is exclusive to them. Threes can similarly accumulate their knowledge to build up a successful image to address their fear of worthlessness and Eights can accumulate knowledge to feel more powerful and in control of their lives. Fives are characterized primarily by the motivation to be capable of handling life and the fear of the converse, being unable to deal with everyday life. 

None of this implies that Fives are inherently more intellectual than others. What is intellectual about learning about all the various ways to commute to your school, or about learning what to say and how to act in front of other people? What is intellectual about learning about where to buy your groceries and how to get it without exhausting your energy and time? 

Fives are not special in terms of intelligence. We are just like all the others; our fears guide our actions on the most fundamental level of existence. The accumulation of resources is our way of coping with our deep insecurity that we are never capable enough and that we are never safe in this world.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> Unless you are foolish enough to suggest that E5s have some very unique and very special ability to be motivated enough to reach the bottom of things. Or have some mental superpower that allows them to play with pieces in their very unique brilliant minds.


You seem more interested in knocking some perceived stereotype of type 5 that you think is out there than actually learning anything about how type 5 operates. So I have nothing more to say.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> There can be an obsessiveness about playing with the pieces in your mind until they come together and make sense.
> 
> On the high end it can lead to someone like Einstein. On the low end it can lead to someone like the Unabomber.


Let's not forget that Ted Kaczynski was a 16 year old Harvard student that had his mind experimented on by the CIA's MKUltra project back in the day. He may have been just another brilliant mathematician (perhaps even another Einstein) otherwise. 









How the CIA created the Unabomber | Boing Boing


When mass murderer Ted Kaczynski was a 16-year-old undergraduate student at Harvard, he took part in a behavioral engineering project run by the CIA. It was part of the US government’s illega…




boingboing.net













The CIA's Secret Quest For Mind Control: Torture, LSD And A 'Poisoner In Chief'


Journalist Stephen Kinzer reveals how CIA chemist Sidney Gottlieb worked in the 1950s and early '60s to develop mind control drugs and deadly toxins that could be used against enemies.




www.npr.org


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

tanstaafl28 said:


> Let's not forget that Ted Kaczynski was a 16 year old Harvard student that had his mind experimented on by the CIA's MKUltra project back in the day. He may have been just another brilliant mathematician (perhaps even another Einstein) otherwise.


Another example I was going to offer was John Nash, a Nobel winning mathematician with paranoid schizophrenia portrayed in the movie "A Beautiful Mind." I was thinking of the scene where he's finding all these hidden messages in the newspapers. It was like his type 5 mind was in overdrive being put to work serving his paranoid schizophrenia.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

enneathusiast said:


> You seem more interested in knocking some perceived stereotype of type 5 that you think is out there than actually learning anything about how type 5 operates. So I have nothing more to say.


In other words, you didn't like that your naive make-believe bullshit idea about type 5 was attacked. It is okay. You don't have to teach anyone. In fact, you shouldn't. There is already enough of this garbage misinformation.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

Allostasis said:


> In other words, you didn't like that your naive make-believe bullshit idea about type 5 was attacked. It is okay. You don't have to teach anyone. In fact, you shouldn't. There is already enough of this garbage misinformation.


No, I just don't want to waste my time trying to share my experience living from 5w6 my whole life with someone who's mind is closed to any experience other than their own.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

enneathusiast said:


> No, I just don't want to waste my time trying to share my experience living from 5w6 my whole life with someone who's mind is closed to any experience other than their own.


It is funny how you talk about "being closed to experiences" while rejecting everything that contradicts your limited view, failing to provide even a minimal justification for what you are saying. You shared enough to know that your experience is useless to me.

On the second thought, it is a good illustration of how anti-intellectual 5w6 can be (assuming you are actually 5w6 in the first place), which is helpful for our collective understanding of the topic.

In this case, the subject accumulates not the knowledge, but just about anything that reinforces his sense of safety and security.
He can play with some "pieces" inside his mind to the point where he builds a convincing enough image, a belief that his "beautiful mind" is somehow blessed with a special capacity that makes him more capable of handling reality, substituting reality with a more comfortable illusion of it and turning his eyes away from all this mount of evidence that contradict his fantasy.

Don't be like that, 5s, you will never grow without facing your fears.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

@Allostasis While I agree 5 isn't directly about being "intellectual" in an academic sense and certainly has nothing to do with level of intelligence, the underlying mechanisms of the type do tend to produce people who operate as @enneathusiast is suggesting. But rather than being a focal point of the type structure itself I view it as a common, predictable though perhaps not ubiquitous byproduct.

5s defense mechanisms are intellectualization/over-observation, hoarding (which is often focused more on internal resources incl. knowledge though it can be very material in cases), isolation of affect, withdrawal and compartmentalization - functionally it's a dual strategy of limiting engagement with the outside world to manageable points of entry and exit, holding on to what you have, and perpetually observing and conceptualizing things you can see through the doorways and windows you've chosen to allow or build. On the less flattering end this means that "detachment" for 5 isn't just detachment from others, or our feelings... it can be detachment from reality and immediacy and practical outcomes. 

Benefit: Many 5s are willing to sit with ideas and problems and spare thought parts that others don't see any significance in for a very long time, just as a function of how we process things. Sometimes the level of disconnection we have can lead to interesting insights... at least we want it to lead to us feeling like we've got our own grip on the thing. 

Drawback: No guarantee that the "understanding" specific 5s come to has any objective, pragmatic value or is actually insightful from an external perspective. In fact there are probably more 5s who are weird cranks than brilliant scientists and artists.

Though you're not wrong about the underlying mechanisms even if you're describing them in a different way than I would. I emphasize when talking about Enneagram that valuing knowledge and liking to learn, or feeling a strong need for it, isn't exclusive to 5 - in the age of specialization even expertise isn't a sign of 5. What underlies the desire to learn at the deepest, most compulsive and original level - which is rarely the only level - and also how information is handled and valuated is more of an indicator. 5s are especially process focused and usually prismatic thinkers, and less likely than most to rate ideas for speed or use value - it kind of has a bottomless pit feel to it from the inside out, for me. It's not that I'm not sure of what I know, it's that there's always more to squeeze out.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

I'm afraid Allostasis is close to the truth with this :



> 5w6 doesn't make you love learning by itself or interested in science. Knowledge or anything is accumulated out of this fear and anxiety, out of the belief that if you don't do that, you will probably mess up miserably. And it is never enough.


Not only there is little connection between type 5 and intelligence, there is little connection between type 5 and being into cerebral things, say science, mathematics or philosophy. Not saying 5s can't be, it's just unrelated. These stories of 5 geniuses are only rumours. None of the examples given are 5s, no matter how brilliant or mad (or both) they are. Each of their attitude towards life corresponds to specific types, and requires a lot of time to understand, they are far from being captured by a rumour. BTW, movies about geniuses rarely reproduce their true personality. "The imitation game" shows an interesting Turing but Turing was no way like in the movie. (I recommend the movie btw, very good ☺)

The following tends to be true but there are similitude with type 9 :



> 5s defense mechanisms are *intellectualization/over-observation, hoarding* (which is often vinegars more on intensely resources incl. knowledge though it can be very material in cases),* isolation of affect*, *withdrawal *and *compartmentalization *- functionally it's a dual strategy of *limiting engagement with the outside world to manageable points of entry and exit* and *perpetually observing* and conceptualizing things you can see through the doorways and windows you've chosen to allow or build.


However, *observing *the cosmos or mathematical facts is not related to type 5 at all, as long as it corresponds to a true involvement prolonged by a social connection (like a job, an article to write) and results or simply a genuine personal interest. Again not saying 5s can't do it, it's just unrelated to type 5. 

This part, I'm not sure :



> On the less flattering end this means that "detachment" for 5 isn't just detachment from others, or our feelings... it can be detachment from reality and immediacy and practical outcomes.


Many types may be little interested in immediacy or practical outcomes without being a 5. Detachment from reality as moving away from anything related to strong desires and affects, yes. But there are really strong similitudes with type 9.

I believe John Nash or Ted Kaczynski are connected to type 5. Not because they are brilliant but because their decent into hell hides a profound renunciation to connections and an obsessive control over their small dull and isolated realities. However, the core of their delusion is the product of another type, having a clear narcissistic and revolutionary flavour. Building bombs requires a great deal of practical mind and resourcefulness, it requires being very active and believing in what you do.

Schizophrenia has nothing to with type 5, not even with the Enneagram.

It is absolutely normal a thread about type 5 leads to saying "Type 5 is not this" rather than "Type 5 is this". Because it's unbelievably hard to explain or even understand what type 5 is. Maybe read Naranjo. Apart from his usual exaggerations, he's not so far away from it.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

skyboy said:


> I'm afraid Allostasis is close to the truth with this :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, Ted Kaczynski was brainwashed by the CIA when he was still a young teenager. Interestingly enough, John Nash claimed that his schizophrenia diminished with age.

Other than that, your points seem relatively valid to me.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

skyboy said:


> Many types may be little interested in immediacy or practical outcomes without being a 5. Detachment from reality as moving away from anything related to strong desires and affects, yes. But there are really strong similitudes with type 9.
> 
> I believe John Nash or Ted Kaczynski are connected to type 5. Not because they are brilliant but because their decent into hell hides a profound renunciation to connections and an obsessive control over their small dull and isolated realities. However, the core of their delusion is the product of another type, having a clear narcissistic and revolutionary flavour. Building bombs requires a great deal of practical mind and resourcefulness, it requires being very active and believing in what you do.


"Over-Observation" is a feature of 5 from as far back as Ichazo. The "over" part is key though - it denotes a form of bystanderism, watching and conceiving - to the exclusion of doing, living from a passionate and embodied place and engaging freely with the world at large and especially other people. Granted Ichazo's system isn't quite the same as contemporary Enneagram, but in this case I think it's helpful for fleshing out understanding of the type as the connection between "over-observer" 5 and Naranjo's description of 5 as using intellectualization as a defense mechanism is self evident. Of course any type can observe or be observant, this is a more specific use, yet applies to many forms of info- and concept-stocking vs only to physical observation.

It's the confluence of "over-observation" + stringent compartmentalization / limiting the interface (with the outside world) +  minimization of needs and unconscious interference with generation of feelings (often resulting in delays of affect) and collection or hoarding of resources like time and energy (often resulting in delays of action) that ime often leads to, 1. Functional detachment from reality - the scope of reality does not fit through the eye of a needle and if you insist on experiencing it only via such a narrow passage you'll be left with something else, made of slivers - which results in a kind of general impracticality and can diminish the experience or perceived significance of real-world outcome/consequence, and 2. "lack of immediacy" if not total avoidance of engagement/action.

I suspect your quibble mostly comes down to semantics but if not we aren't likely to agree because these are all either foundational features of the type or common features that can predictably arise from foundational features when they're operating in tandem.

I do agree that other types can "lack immediacy" and "be impractical" broadly speaking, but as with "loving to learn" it doesn't grow out of the same psychological structure nor usually express in the way it does for 5, through core 5 mechanisms like intellectualization, compartmentalization, etc.

9s in particular are more body-based and often active/doing based than they're given credit for - physical sensation including through exercising,
walking, working can be used to narcotize, which is what 9s do. 9s are slothful about individuation from the environment, so they are more out of touch with themselves than with the environs or externalities - 5s have something of an inverse issue in that it's their sense of acute separateness from the environs and externalities that exaggerates the anxiety they have that they could be overwhelmed or drained by the world through uncontrolled contact. So separateness/detachment is a source of "impracticality" and "lack of immediacy" for 5s, but not for 9s - if 9s give a similar appearance, they come by it differently. (In fact Einstein seems to be a 9 to me, not a 5 - and his thought having the "diffusion into everything" quality of 9 issues vs the alienated and alienating quality of 5 issues is precisely why I think this. )

Ymmv on Kaczynski's type, I have no strong opinion on it, but I wouldn't say that Kaczynski was displaying "a great deal of practical mind" by building bombs. He was displaying a highly specific skillset he'd acquired in the service of some very unusual and arguably out of touch political and philosophical ideas, which does not have much use value outside of narrow contexts. Bomb making may be "practical" in a very literal sense - it does a concrete thing, I'm sure it took practice - but it was of questionable practicality re: producing any purposeful outcome, especially from the POV of anyone but Kaczynski himself.

Also, I won't speak for enneathusiast but I did not interpret their passage on John Nash to imply that paranoid schizophrenia is type 5 or Enneagram related, nor do I think it makes sense to see it that way.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

...


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

Hi baitedcrow. We partly disagree, yes. Better argue with words than bombs. ☺

Of course, Nash's schizophrenia is unrelated to his type and I don't think enneathousiast meant it. I may have suggested it, sorry if so. Schizophrenia combines with the type but is independant of it. It creates a huge stress when the symptoms suddenly appear and the type reacts accordingly.

Over-observer is also to me the best word for type 5. And I agree with the following :



> It's the confluence of "over-observation" + stringent compartmentalization / limiting the interface (with the outside world) + minimization of needs and unconscious interference with generation of feelings (often resulting in delays of affect) and collection or hoarding of resources like time and energy (often resulting in delays of action) that ime often leads to, 1. Functional detachment from reality - reality does not fit through the eye of a needle and if you insist on experiencing it only through one you'll be left with something else, made of slivers - which results in a kind of general impracticality and buffers against the experience of realistic outcome/consequence, and 2. "lack of immediacy" if not total avoidance of engagement/action.


It fits type 5 well imo. I would also tend to agree with the fact that type 5 may have a certain obsessiveness like over-thinking and creating connections between facts and that this is close to type 1's perfectionism. I'm not sure about hoarding resources but believe the neurotic attachment to the minimal is real, as well as living and giving more happens when the attachment softens.

But I stick to the main message: "cerebrality is not type 5".

Any attempt to describe type 5 inevitably overlaps with other types. The avoidance of engagement can be a result of fixation 9 via other means (a sense of no-oneness, avoidance of conflicts, desire for peace of mind or to maintain the status quo, to be invisible or just foot-dragging) : they "disappear". For heathy 9s, this is hardly perceivable. Type 1 acts like a "tunnel vision" both about what is perceived and what is wanted. 9s also have a tendency to over-protect their energy or feel easily drained. About a delay in action, this can naturally be 9ish. 4s, 5s and 9s share a similar tendency to fatalism.

Far away from the similitude between 5 and 9/1, the line between 5 and 7 is subtle. The 5ish arrogance and detachment can mutate into pretentiousness and narcissism (I believe it's the case for Kaczynski but I need to spend more time on it), and on the brighter side, the separated sense of observation of 5s can mutate into playing an active role, a practical adaptation to life including in healthy practice of authority (mostly in the sense of promoting ideas and managing / influencing people), possibly in domains usually considered as 'cerebral'.

When it comes to saying 9s are (always) more physical than 5s, I can't agree. Instead, I think they are *more instinctive and more grounded*. But instinct is not just experienced in the body. Being grounded strangely does not rule out being extremely cerebral. It is true that many 9s are physical (sports, walking...) and I would say 5s are unlikely to be.

BUT...

I had a look at people whose superior intelligence and intellectual achievement cannot be questioned. I needed to make my mind about this 5/9 question. At some point, I decided jump to geniuses like Newton, Einstein, Turing... (the list is quite long), it was a surprise to me. I saw some people suggesting Einstein could be 9 with solid arguments, so I had a look. After a few years, I agreed. These geniuses may be dreamers of some sort, very patient bookish persons, may venture in areas that are so intellectually advanced that it may even threaten their health (and certainly would threaten the health of any person with less head power). You could call it an avoidance of life. They may even be perceived as arrogant. But they are not 5s or 5ish imo. They are profoundly connected to the community they belong to (sometimes in the "invisible"). The problems they worked on were no way disconnected from the core concerns of the scientific community of their time. They were just clever, bold and intuitive enough to find the vision that was growing in other's mind but not seen yet. Genius is not only intelligence but it requires an intelligence and intuition above normality. But beside it, all of these geniuses lie at a point were spirituality, morals and science meet and this is for me a trademark of the highest side of SX 9 (the mystic). Reading them, I see the "peacemaker" and "saint" archetype everywhere. This is my main argument. Getting into details would be long but their writings are easy to find.

The thing is not to say 5's can't be clever. These geniuses are quite far away from our more ordinary abilities, no matter their type. I simply insist on the fact that the description introduced as technical expert (5w6) or iconoclast (5w4) are misleading. In an IT company, maybe a techy guy will make you feel like an idiot for not knowing how to reboot with wkw + $q (it's better with -r but can stick to the solution for dummies ☺). This may sound arrogant, cold, unemotional. but they are not 5ish at all. Iconoclasts are rarer. Nietzsche and Schopenhauer are said to be 5w4 so I had a look. I happened to read them out of curiosity and they are respectively (for me) undoubtedly SX 7w? (rather 6) and SX 9w1. I agree that 5w4, by being intellectually contentious, dry and non-conformist could be called an "iconoclast". Schopenhauer is all of this and still a 9w1 (same argument : mystic, saint, 1ish, truthful...). The underlying neurosis is different. Their writing are accessible to anyone to make his mind.

I re-read Naranjo yesterday because it echoed what you say a bit and somebody posted a link. There is something insightful in his 5 chapter. A tough question remains : is the vision of type 5 by Naranjo a possible description of any serious neurosis, mixing a strange apathy, alienation and hidden narcissism ? I know for sure only half of what he says about type 6 is correct for an average 6, the rest (like rigid appliance of rules from an unquestioned authority above to be dismissive of the people below) not only does not apply to an average 6 at all, this does not apply to 6s more than some other unhealthy types. Same for 4s, while they may be temperamental, moody, lamentative, self-defeating, craving for the love, satisfaction or success they'll never have, Naranjo's vision is undeniably exaggerated to me.

I don't know what type 5 is exactly. I have clues only. I like your wording and will add it to the library I secretly hold with my shaky greedy little hands until I can say something relevant about it in about a million years when I feel emotionally ready and when I'm sure this will be of no practical use.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

@skyboy There isn't really anything solid to argue here in my view, disagreement or no. I think Allostasis paraphrased the main dynamic that underlies 5 psychology fairly well. The fact that you're going to find overlap between types when it comes to vague descriptors or broad behavioral classifications, some more than others in certain areas, is completely obvious and doesn't undercut my points whether I'm expressing them adequately or not. For instance "all 9s are more physical than all 5s" is not what I'm getting at, though probabilistically 5s will have more resistance to easy physicality than 9s will. 9 narcotizing can be more body based, physical and active than many people think =/= being a gut/instinct type is all about being physical.

I'm taking possible superficial and behavioral similarities for granted, the firmest differences are always in deep mechanism. Because Enneagram is an archetypal system, these mechanisms can play out in fuzzier ways in real individuals than they are laid out in type descriptions, yes, but that's an issue for typing more than type definition in this case. Getting to the bottom of the behavior takes time, it can't always be done at a glance and expecting the categories to be black and white especially at the level of presentation would be a misguided expectation, it's not one I hold at all.

Also ymmv but if you don't have a solid working definition of a type (you grasp what they are, not just what you think they aren't) it's genuinely unsurprising that you find them tricky to distinguish. I don't think this difficulty is a feature of 5 as a type but of how you're thinking about it. Better to get a firm handle on what 5 is, and find some solidly typable people to study in person to grasp how underlying structure can make itself subtly visible. At least, that's what I'd do (I'm a bit focused on understanding 2 in this way at the moment because I've realized my partner probably is one, to my faint surprise. )

Type 5's ego defense pattern absolutely does have some innately cerebral features e.g. use of intellectualization to neutralize anxiety, cognitive over instinctive or emotional orientation, etc. though particular 5s need not be recognizably intellectual or intelligent. These features, though, are things that underpin the type in a definitional way from the earliest concept of 5 onward. Redefining what the category indicates is fine, but I wouldn't find it useful, and saying that 5s have no necessary cerebral component would require redefining the type.

Specific type 9s and people of all other types can certainly be cerebral just as some 5s are not overtly cerebral, but their ego pattern doesn't innately demand a degree of it, whereas for 5s, intellectualization (in like a semi-Freudian sense) at minimum is a key element.

9s are also simply not disengaged or naturally alienated from the environment/universe/other people in the fundamental and key way 5s are, even if they are introverted or shy. They are over-connected and use habitual forms of engagement with the environment to narcotize/reduce awareness of self. "Inner peace" is somewhat misleading terminology for 9 - harmony is closer to what it actually is but ultimately what's being referred to is a reluctance to be aware of one's self as distinct from the rest of existence - something that conflict and hard lines draw attention to.

5s are very aware of the self as separate from everything, and don't numb self awareness and reduce individuation with narcotization as a base defense, they rather detach and withdraw to preserve it and remain unaffected. 5s want the hard lines. Even isolation of affect in practice doesn't mean being unaware of affect, it's more a detachment of affect from the thoughts and situations that trigger it.

Again this is all definitional. In fact the difference is actually implicit in the structure of Enneagram... types near the bottom of the circle, 4 and 5, are arguably too individuated or alienated to perceive themselves as valid and natural parts of the whole, their issues arise in part from this, and learning that they and the environment/other people are not so fundamentally separate after all is part of their growth challenge. 9s are at the top of the circle, and are under-individuated and unconsciously don't separate themselves out from the whole, in fact have an underlying predisposition not to think of themselves much as selves at all. "Ego of having no ego" is a type 9 sort of issue (not in the sense of false humility, easy awareness of self as other is just contrary to how they're built), 5s are not this way.

Yes, merging for a 9 can result in being drained or having one's presence overwritten in a way that is unsustainable and unpleasant for the 9, as it would be for anyone, and they may try to resist it when it goes that far - but they don't fear precisely this problem in the way 5s do at the very core, else their unconscious strategy would be to throw up boundaries, minimize, withhold and set limits - even with their narcotizing habits - as a 5 does to protect the self from external demands or overwhelm.

And they don't. 9s use the environment to "numb out" and unconsciously fail to view themselves as separate from the whole. Practically speaking it is precisely that tendency that may put them more at risk of being taxed than 5s are - because of their character structure they, by default, have an implicit deficit of awareness that being drained is possible... how can you be drained by something you're not distinct from? Doesn't mean they don't learn it, but it doesn't trigger their alarm bells automatically as for 5.

Many 9s whose habitual flow/method of self-numbing involves their 9-5 job or other hard work actually do end up ran ragged as a result, and they may be slow to realize this is happening as their numbing has reduced their sense of what's good for their self. Once that momentum is there, the "flow" that connects them and drowns their self-consciousness, it can be difficult for them to pull out of it.

A 5 in a similar position on the other hand will generally be very aware of being potentially impinged upon.... before it ever happens, they'll unconsciously begin to live in a way that helps them avoid it.

None of this is surface level. It does not mean that 9s literally don't get that they are one person and not also the tree in their yard, for example. It doesn't mean that 5s are withholding intentionally. They don't need to be aware of the ego's logic or believe in it with their rational mind for the cognitive distortion to be in effect.

NB I dated an introverted (mbti INTP) type 9 and despite superficial similarities the differences were quite obvious. He used math (and physical exercise) as a way to lose himself in the universe and to narcotize/avoid individuation, the sense of disconnection and more pointed ego of type 5 simply was not there. 5s detach... he was subdued and asocial but used the flow of narcotization to facilitate merging, not to detach. He did not intellectualize away his anxiety about being swallowed up by everything out there (he had none on any level) or compartmentalize. A 5 will isolate affect, but asking him about his own internal state, mental or emotional, was a "huh, what, who cares" affair. One could construe that as a type of detachment but it's also not precisely what's meant by emotional detachment in 5, it was related to his narcotizing. He had no issue investing energy in narcotizing activities - 5s often show difficulty investing energy almost across the board.

I will say, 9 is probably the type Naranjo understood least, so other authors' work helps a great deal. 6 - I think Naranjo was off in his real world examples and ideas about how instincts can be understood to interact with type most helpfully, but boil what he laid out for 6 down to its skeleton, and it is not that difficult for me to relate the average 6 I know back to it. Though I do generally think that the way type 6 "orientation to authority" and structure/rules is understood by most is partial at best. The problem there comes down to people fixating on varied concrete examples (6 tries to follow the rules, or enforce the rules, or question the rules, or break the rules, or even lead and make the rules...) instead of looking at the common underlying principle that causes different expressions in different 6s and in different contexts (authority and rules can impact stability and access to truth, better pay attention - attention can be paid in different ways). My father is a messy, rule breaking, flexible, counterphobic leaning 6 - and the orientation to authority and rules is still clearly there.

But then I'm far from being an Enneagram truther anyway. It's all taxonomy to me, I use it the way I understand it.


----------



## skyboy (Jul 6, 2021)

I'm not undercutting your points and I don't doubt you see self-narcotisation of 9s (with maths or sports) in a way similar that l do. I'm saying that a long list people said to be 5 (Einstein...) are 9w1s and that cerebrality is not very connected to 5 or being a mind type. There are not 9w1s who use maths as narcotisation on one side and 5s who make great discoveries on the other. My point is that this is continuous line all inside type 9. That's all. I can't prove, I won't even try. And we will never agree.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Fwiw I don't at all hold the opinion that there are "9w1s who use maths as narcotisation on one side and 5s who make great discoveries on the other." As I said, I myself think Einstein is a 9. My thoughts on how 5 requires being "cerebral" or "intellectual" mainly refer back to one very specific, limited aspect of the fix, and don't merit overstating - doesn't mean all 5s are more "intellectual" than all individuals of other types, it means 5s largely defend themselves with intellectualization and other types defend with other techniques, irrespective of how "intellectual" they are.

This is moreso clarification for anyone else who reads through the thread as I'm not sure I'm being interpreted correctly at the takeaway-level.


----------



## Allostasis (Feb 2, 2021)

@baitedcrow 
I don't see where we disagree. "intellectualization" (in the sense of fighting against uncomfortable internal emotional conflict with concepts) does seem to be one of the common features of 5s. Which, as you already noted, doesn't necessarily lead to greater insights since this is not its goal, it's just a defense strategy.

All of that kind of reminds me of how introversion works in Jung's (and his predecessors') texts, curious.



> Benefit: Many 5s are willing to sit with ideas and problems and spare thought parts that others don't see any significance in for a very long time, just as a function of how we process things. Sometimes the level of disconnection we have can lead to interesting insights... at least we want it to lead to us feeling like we've got our own grip on the thing.


I am inclined to note that this is not an exclusive side-effect that only 5s can reach.
There were quite a number of cases in my life when I had to invest weeks or even months into issues of "cerebral" character. Out of my own volition and etc. and it led me to very impactful positive outcomes, which aren't necessarily related to something immediately useful or practical. Although some of them were.
Therefore, I can't agree that this disconnection or a heightened tendency to rely upon it gives some sort of unique advantage/edge that can't be reproduced via other strategies if that was implied. 

Also, this "intellectualization" as a strategy, doesn't it seem to be what other types also use and rather heavily so?
Take 3s, who intellectualize in order to derive their value from external categories as a way to escape this uncontrollable inner sense of insecurity/worthlessness. Who would "outintellectualize" the other, in a fair duel?



> In fact there are probably more 5s who are weird cranks than brilliant scientists and artists.


Exactly. I would say the same about many supposedly xNTPs tbh.

I am a bit curious what you would say about 8s, but that is a bit beyond the scope of this thread.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Allostasis said:


> Therefore, I can't agree that this disconnection or a heightened tendency to rely upon it gives some sort of unique advantage/edge that can't be reproduced via other strategies if that was implied.


It wasn't meant to be implied (by me at least).



Allostasis said:


> Also, this "intellectualization" as a strategy, doesn't it seem to be what other types also use and rather heavily so?


Not exactly. Intellectualization =/= just thinking, strategizing or being intellectual. It's a specific defense mechanism, a way of reasoning and thinking about a thing to avoid the emotional discomfort it could trigger, compulsively focusing on the aspect of a problem that can be logiced and conceptualized to keep from actively feeling anything about it. And fundamentally, it is a characteristic mechanism of 5 moreso than any other type, so: no intellectualization, or intellectualization not a main defense mechanism, not a 5.

No intellectualization, could still be a 3 or any other type. Any type can reason but that doesn't mean they're predisposed to do it to avoid anxiety as a 5 is. Other types also avoid certain emotions under certain circumstances - 8s deny, 2s repress, 1s use reaction formation - but none have to be accomplishing it by reasoning emotions into background noise in order to be that type, except 5.

3s (your example) are characterized by identification as a defense mechanism - "reasoning" out external values, internalizing them and then becoming an exemplar of them would be part of identification. (It doesn't usually involve conscious reasoning though, 3s often do this completely without realizing it, hence their tendency toward self-deception.) A 3 using reason to explicitly identify characteristics to mimic would be as likely to reason their way into displaying and feeling certain emotions as to reason their way out of them - in which case it isn't "intellectualization" in the sense meant by the word re: 5.

Intellectualization is going to be more prevalent in 5s, both in terms of how many use it and how often they use it, because it being prevalent is a key part of what makes a 5 a 5. Though that's not to say people of other types may not sometimes use intellectualization. People who identify as having a 5 fix (looking at trifix) I would expect to use it somewhat more often, but ultimately anyone can and most probably will at some point. Features of type patterns aren't mutually exclusive, core type is just about dominance of and conformity to the general pattern. Dominance of intellectualization, along with isolation of affect, as a defense mechanism - over other mechanisms - is just specifically part of the pattern for 5.

For instance, should a 3 identify into a role where it would be "in character" to focus on reasoning and avoid feeling or experiencing anxiety, they might use intellectualization as a substrategy to help them with the pervasive role playing that identification consists of. But identification is still operating dominantly in that case. If a 3 identifies into a role where intellectualization would have a counterproductive impact on their image, they won't develop it or will minimize or dispense with it.

This is all very Naranjoian, but for underpinnings of type I still consider him the best resource overall.


----------

