# A Prime On The Core Gestalts For Each E-Type And More



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

lametaoist said:


> If someone seems to be a type 7 to you, that means they fit your description of type 7. Why is your description of type 7 the golden standard? How do we know if you are correct in your assessment?


to me subjectively, i didnt see anybody as 'type 7' until i knew what a 'type 7' was. before then, i simply recognized certain people as enthusiastic, scattered and difficulty sitting still. noticed the tendencies to seek adrenaline rushes, avoid responsibility, generally poor money handling, etc... 




lametaoist said:


> Defining and identifying "reality" is a very complicated topic, and the notion of "subjective" and "objective" isn't always useful.


reality, is a concept. it exists objectively, whether or not it is known. seems useful to me, but i understand why it wouldnt seem useful to a Te user, which needs empirical evidence to validate 'reality'.


----------



## lametaoist (Mar 25, 2017)

nablur said:


> to me subjectively, i didnt see anybody as 'type 7' until i knew what a 'type 7' was. before then, i simply recognized certain people as enthusiastic, scattered and difficulty sitting still. noticed the tendencies to seek adrenaline rushes, avoid responsibility, generally poor money handling, etc...
> 
> 
> 
> reality, is a concept. it exists objectively, whether or not it is known. seems useful to me, but i understand why it wouldnt seem useful to a Te user, which needs empirical evidence to validate 'reality'.


These two points seem to be the crux of the debate. I'll address the first one first: As I mentioned, character traits seem to be more consistent over time, but there are different explanations as to why, and we don't really know which one, if any of them, are the truth. I don't debate that certain character traits that you've observed about your friend have remained consistent over time. The two personality tests that have empirical validation measure traits, and don't have a specific typology associated with them. So the issue is that even if character traits are consistent over time, or that we observe them to be consistent over time, doesn't mean that a particular construction called a "typology" is consistent over time. Different personality types often share certain characteristics, and even if one trait is consistent over time, others my develop prominence, and it becomes an open debate about which is the "true" type.

Your second point is also a good one. I'm not debating whether or not an independent reality exists. I agree that a world exists outside of my ability to perceive it. That would be way to narcissistic to say that the world ceases to exist when I'm not looking. The issue is deeper, in that we don't know what the world is like independent of observation. Quantum mechanics has suggested that reality exists in our interaction with the "objective" world, as in the end, there is no way to fully separate "subjects" and "objects." Every time we make an "objective" observation, we are subjectively interpreting the information based on our complex world view. Otherwise, we'd simply see a confusing mass of colors, or unconnected sounds and smells. 

My point is that it is extremely difficult to be "purely objective." At the same time, it is not useful to be entirely "subjective," because it's important to reconcile and acknowledge the existence of external things. My point is that everything is generally some mixture of the two, and if we own that, it's easier to recognize our own blind spots. 

My original point is that there is no "flawless" way to apply the Enneagram to a constantly changing, ever evolving reality that we influence simply by observing it. Holding that makes it easier to be a little more adaptable to the ever changing nature of the world around us.


----------



## Heavy (Jun 16, 2010)

*Grant Cardone...LSE-Te 7w8 sp/so (The Enterprising-Rebellious Gestalt)*








*Pete Buttigieg...ESE-Fi 9w1 sp/so (The Purposeful-Leisurely Gestalt)*








*Ronnie Kray...LIE-Te 8w9 sx/so (The Diabolical-Aggressive Gestalt)*








*Zsa zsa Gabor...IEI-Ni 2w1 sx/so (The Overbearing-Seductive Gestalt)*


----------



## Queen Talia (Aug 21, 2017)

Omg you're here too.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

> Type 2: The Seductive Gestalt
> Core Distortion: *“I am not capable of validating myself.”*


this is the best one-sentence description for 2 I've seen, been floating around the back of my mind for a while, it's true for me (and what's more I do not want to validate myself...and 'validating oneself' means going to 8), true for every 2 I can think of, it's flexible and very specific


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

> _Type 2: The Seductive Gestalt_
> _Core Distortion: _*“I am not capable of validating myself.”*


Is often said of type 3 and is said by type 3 on panels.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

enneathusiast said:


> Is often said of type 3 and is said by type 3 on panels.


Well, I can see it applying to Type 3, Type 9, maybe lots of people, but (maybe it was my 2 bias) I read it as being much more 2, because it has a complex on dependency, any image type 'isn't themselves until they're seen' but I think 2s are normally completely unwilling to validate themselves on their own, it's why it's the 'manipulative' type that makes other people validate them. In my opinion 3s normally do think they are capable of validating themselves, it's what they are constantly trying to prove, 2s are trying to prove the opposite...consciously or unconsciously, 2s are constantly saying to themselves and to others 'see, look, I can't do it on my own' and 3s are trying to say and prove the opposite.

But I might have understood the statement more narrowly than it is actually intended.


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

> _Type 2: The Seductive Gestalt_
> _Core Distortion: _*“I am not capable of validating myself.”*


Here's an example of how type 3 might express that same sentiment.






Starting at 6:21 in the video. 

Here's a transcript of what I'm referring to. (I didn't write the transcript. A link to it was provided in the description of the video. It's a little off from the video but gets the point).

*Eleonora:* ...everything the 3 does is for getting value, so a 3 does not really value themselves for what they are, but they value themselves for the things that they do.
*Iain:* So let’s have a practical example of that in your life.
*Eleonora:* Well a practical example of that in my life…I can bend over backwards to do all kinds of different things and to do them fast, to do them well, to do lots of them at the same time, so that _you_ can see how valuable I am to you.
*Iain:* So it’s like impressing people in one way.
*Eleonora:* It’s more than impressing, *it’s really getting the validation that I, as an individual, cannot do for myself; so I have to get you guys to validate who I am*, based upon what it is [that] I can do for you. So for me that was very, very, very key, the sense of lack of self-value, not lack of self worth, but value...


My point here is that to distinguish type 2 from the other types by the phrase *“I am not capable of validating myself” *is simply inaccurate. The OP's statement



> My method of typing is the most conducive to identifying and distinguishing types in the real world.


is simply a self-promoting exaggeration that can be misleading for those wanting to know the types better.


----------



## baitedcrow (Dec 22, 2015)

Nissa Nissa said:


> In my opinion 3s normally do think they are capable of validating themselves, it's what they are constantly trying to prove


I do think this hits on an interesting feature of 3s that IMO makes those that know their type potentially poor examples to use for strict comparison if you’re just trying to identify 3s in the wild. As I understand it, part of the struggle of 3s is not just in the need to project a successful or desirable image, but in identifying with their created image even to the point of forgoing real self-awareness. Kind of a “I am who I want you to think I am”/do it (or fake it) ‘til you _are_ it thing.

Needing a lot of validation from others isn’t exactly James Dean though: independence and nonchalance are usually more marketable. So while 3s _are_ very reliant on forms of external validation, I would agree that in the trenches a lot of them strive not to be, have convinced themselves that they aren’t, and wouldn’t necessarily see themselves in that particular “I” statement (the one about 2s) immediately... even if it applies to their subconscious beliefs. Getting the validation they crave can actually be dependent on _seeming,_ one way or another, like they’re _not_ a person that needs/craves validation, because that kind of emotional dependence conflicts with many people's idea of what a "winner" is. Sometimes the best way to get people to buy what you’re selling is to buy it yourself. 

I find 3s to be interesting in their previous-mistype patterns for this same reason: they can mistype as having the core fixation that would look best on a resume for whatever it is they are trying to succeed at. The ones that have ultimately typed themselves as 3s, though, can be really fascinating people to talk to, maybe because they are relatively far along on the “self-awareness journey” compared to where their natural tendencies placed them at the beginning of the race.


----------



## Heavy (Jun 16, 2010)

Some more examples. Learn the core gestalts now and key features before anything else. More member mistypings only leads to more misinformation.

*Greta Thunberg....EII-Fi 1w2 sx/sp (the Conscientious-Rigid Gestalt)*








*Temica Roshawn.....IEI-Ni 3w2 so/sp (the Expansive-Self-Confident Gestalt)*








*Wes Watson...LSE-Si 6w7 sx/sp (The Pugnacious-Self-Protective Gestalt)*








*Hunter Biden...LIE-Te 3w4 sp/sx (The Calculated-Self-Confident Gestalt)*


----------



## knife (Jul 10, 2013)

lametaoist said:


> The main issue as that people have so much difficulty determining their type. IQ remains relatively consistent over time, absent of significant damage to the brain--that's called test-retest reliability. It's difficult to know whether the problem is with personality, or the tests. Is personality something that remains consistent over time? If it isn't, how can we make a reliable test? It would be like having an identity based on your blood pressure...every time you go for a run, your personality would change. Oh, wait a minute...it kind of does.
> 
> For most people, personality remains relatively consistent over time. Why is that? Is it because personality is inherently consistent, or is it because people need to have a sense of consistency in their sense of self? Is that the role that personality typology plays? To give people a consistent meaning making system over time? But does that make it truth?


This is very well written, and gets to the crux of the problem (although the IQ example is flawed in other ways). It's an ancient problem, one which not only greatly predates psychology in general but is also present even in the very deepest roots of the Western intellectual tradition: can we find an objective truth in the world as it is? or is the world inherently shaped by our perceptions of it? The former is traditionally called _empiricism_ and is rooted in the outlook and methods of Aristotle; the latter _idealism_, and those of Plato. 

And this is the question: Does knowing about MBTI, the Enneagram, Socionics, Big 5, or any of the myriad other methods of psychological systemization give you a deeper insight into things as they are? or does it rather give you greater ability to reshape and color your perceptions of things as you see them? Or in philosophical terms: are they reflective of a noumenal truth? or of a phenomenological attempt to know an inherently unknowable noumenon? And the answer is: Nobody knows. And to make things worse, this is a problem that is very much live and very much at the heart of all psychology:






*The only thing we can say for sure is that anybody who peddles that their system is the one true system and that the others are full of it, is almost certainly spewing bullshit, and we can pretty easily find gross mistypings in their "work".*


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

It occured to me you typed Skinner at 5.

Which made me wonder if you are familiar with Walden Two.





Walden Two said:


> Walden Two embraces the proposition that the behavior of organisms, including humans, is determined by environmental variables, and that systematically altering environmental variables can generate a sociocultural system that very closely approximates utopia. (...)
> 
> Some of these customs include that children are raised communally, families are non-nuclear, free affection is the norm, and personal expressions of thanks are taboo. Such behavior is mandated by the community's individually self-enforced "Walden Code", a guideline for self-control techniques, which encourages members to credit all individual and other achievements to the larger community, while requiring minimal strain. Community counselors are also available to supervise behavior and assist members with better understanding and following the Code.
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walden_Two


----------



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

I don't really get the meaning of these


----------



## Full_fathom_4 (Jan 23, 2018)

knife said:


> And this is the question: Does knowing about MBTI, the Enneagram, Socionics, Big 5, or any of the myriad other methods of psychological systemization give you a deeper insight into things as they are? or does it rather give you greater ability to reshape and color your perceptions of things as you see them?


Wisdom-of-self gives insight. But what is wisdom? It's a knowledge gained only by experience. You've heard the term.. "enough knowledge to be dangerous". In this instance (herein), a person is left with enough knowledge to formulate ideas concerning the reality of themselves, others. It's probably not completely accurate though. Humans are very messy. Wisdom occurs when you've really let go.... There is no longer any identifying feature. You are you, you know, and it's fine enough... in this life. Others can now place identifiers upon you. But now you're old. And hopefully rich, figuratively. 

It only gets sticky when there are people who identify with what I just wrote! Old soul wise beyond yadda yadda. Well, now you're just narcotized... these boards are full of them.

Learn your fear, vice... weakness. Make peace with them. Go open to the very fear. A yield of corn cares not, whether a corn farmer pains about being a corn farmer. Be productive, personally, among your family, and your family (the one's you've created) or live in a cabin! Because people really do suck, many of them. They're terrible! Find good ones and live richly, however defined.


----------



## Heavy (Jun 16, 2010)

Stackemup Enneagram established itself as a Typology Superpower in 2019. Stackemup Enneagram anticipates unveiling the mother of all typology resources in 2020. 

*Alan Lichtman: LII-Ti 5w6 so/sp (Solitary-Self-Sufficient Gestalt)*








*Ivette Sangalo: IEE-Ne 2w1 sx/so (Nurturing/Overbearing-Seductive Gestalt)*








*Ammon Bundy: SLI-Si 6w5 so/sx (The Volatile-Self-Protective Gestalt)*








*Ralph Lauren: LIE-Ni 7w8 sp/sx (The Enterprising-Non-Conforming Gestalt)*


----------



## Full_fathom_4 (Jan 23, 2018)

lametaoist said:


> ...recent words.....


IMO this is part of the human cognitive function. No matter how self identified you or I are, there is an evolution of the personality. Perception is what you create, reality is nothing more than some else supporting/sharing your perception. I attempt to admit this by my own perception from time to time.

*I actually don't like this post, but I'm going to let it stink through, sorta like a fart.


----------



## Heavy (Jun 16, 2010)

Stackemup Typology is the only game in town. I cracked the VI templates for every socionics type and subtype. I've got the only valid breakdown for every type, wing and stack. What's better, the VI templates and type wing stack breakdown can be correlated without running into impossible combinations 

*Carmen Miranda: IEI-Ni 2w3 so/sp (the Insatiable-Seductive Gestalt)*








*Liam Gallagher: SLE-Se 7w6 sx/sp (the Mercurial-Rebellious Gestalt)*








*Augustus Invictus: EIE-Fe 6w5 sx/sp (the Volatile-Self-Protective Gestalt)*








*Donna Rotunno: LSE-Te 6w7 sp/sx (the pugnacious-self-protective gestalt)*


----------



## Arthrospira (Feb 18, 2020)

Heavy said:


> Type 1: The Rigid Gestalt
> Core Strategy: Control
> Core Distortion: “Somebody must be punished for the world’simperfections and flaws.”
> Area of Fixation: Retribution; vengeance
> ...


That is both relatable and extremely bothersome; if you wrote it then well done! Would you mind giving an example to an LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/so, I looked through your posts but couldn’t see any. It could also be fictional, in fact I’d prefer it that way since I didn’t recognize any of the people you’ve posted.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

@Heavy

This is a lot of work you've done. I'm fascinated. I hope you are still around.


----------



## leftover crack (May 12, 2013)

This has been a very reductive description of the types. You're brave to be sharing something so unfinished.

Though I must say I enjoyed the brief read that you've kindly provided. If there is one thing I've learned from this it's that I don't actually exist so I really enjoyed that bit of validation.


----------

