# Attachment triad more 'normal'?



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

This requires some explanation since I don't think 'normal' can be easily quantified, and it's going to apply to different people in wildly different ways. But from personal experience, I notice a quality with attachment types that I would I guess define as 'normal'; it is also a bit confusing to me and I would like insights on how this fits in with attachment themes [if it in fact does]. Granted I could be misattributing it, perhaps to social instinct or something else.

I'll use music as an example. Something I notice with Threes I know - and to a lesser degree, Sixes and Nines - is an intuitive understanding of which music is 'cool' and which isn't, at any given moment. Granted I'm sure not all Threes have this superpower. But it's something - I for instance will sometimes listen specifically to top forty songs in order to acquaint myself - but that's just memorizing a list. I can't hear a new song on the radio and know what to think about it, unless something about it speaks subjectively, to me.

I feel that attachment types are better at drawing objective opinions about things - and frankly, not very good at drawing subjective opinions. I have definitely seen attachment types on this website speak deeply about what something means to them subjectively, but in real life I tend to find attachment types dropping the ball a bit when it comes to questions like 'what do you like about this?' Hard to explain but when I ask questions like this or something like that - it's like they really draw a blank. Which I could be misinterpreting.

So with music. I have a Three friend who seems to _completely confuse_ something being popular with it being good. "I don't like Taylor Swift's newer stuff" "Yes, but she's very successful, isn't she?" But there also seems - with her and other attachment types I know - to be also an objective quality of 'goodness' which feels...I guess arbitrary to me, and I don't see others being interested in it. Watching attachment types listen to music - there seems to be a quality of 'something good' about a song - unrelated to subjective feelings about it, or some sort of academic understanding of the principles involved. (I also seem to see attachment types using 'good' as an adjective pretty commonly, in ways I wouldn't. like 'this theme park is really good'. I wouldn't say that. But maybe it's just an unrelated linguistic thing.)

Not sure if I'm explaining myself properly. My point, if I have a point, is that there seems, in the attachment triad, to be some sort of sensor for an objective quality of goodness, which imo translates to things being more...'normal'. Attachment types seem to me to understand what is normal much more easily than most others, and on a different level. Granted Threes seem to do it in a more competitive/critiquing way, Sixes in a more blending way, and Nines in a more...non-judgmental way, but regardless there seems to be some quality between them that is 'in the know' as to what is normal and what is not.

Does that make sense? I'm not trying to stereotype with this, I'm trying to pinpoint some quality that is difficult for me to define. Is there a reason attachment types would be this way, as opposed to rejection/frustration types?


----------



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

@Phoenix Virtue I find it hard to communicate with my 6 friend (tritype 468 instincts prob sp/so or so/sp) who ALWAYS refers to someone as belonging to a group. Oh they are "reactionaries," or oh they are "white hippies" lol, and I am like "what does that mean?!" and she comes up with an entire array of characteristics, including their political leanings, what kind of people they are etc., just from that categorization. I don't think in stereotypes usually, I think more in terms of the individual. But I disagree that they are not attuned to their _personal music_, so to speak. She is a poet and knows well what she personally likes and dislikes. I don't think she even listens to pop songs, I wonder if that's more so/sx.


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

Yeah, I've made similar observations. This is not to say that pretty much all 3s, 6s, and 9s don't have their quirks, but they still seem to be able to comprehend normalcy and appropriateness, and then act on it. They're like the people that say, "I like [insert niche, yet still socially acceptable thing], I'm soooo weird right?" And they also seem to be the ones that can have more "alternative" quirks and fit in with everyone just fine. And that may be because they don't make a big deal out of them. 

I know that, for me, what can annoy me the most in other people is peacocking how special or weird they are. I just find it tacky and have a natural affinity for socially appropriate likes and dislikes. I usually feel like the most normal one in the room wherever I go.


----------



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

Hmm, that does make some sense, I think. Why they would be that way more than Rejection or Frustration types, as Frustration types have their own ideals for how things should be, while Rejection types... well. It's interesting though. It's the kind of thing I feel I have a difficult time "getting" but I would be lying if I said I didn't wish I had that ability sometimes, so I mean, it is something I can be self-conscious about (especially _because _I'm so oblivious about it). Although it annoys me when my family is like "oh, but it's popular" for example. As if that's gonna convince me to like something. But then I'm not that counter-culture either or whatever, because I like plenty of mainstream stuff if it's relevant to my interests. Or, uhm, when someone comments about similar things that Rose mentions, it might bother me, but I also get thrown off when I meet someone who doesn't think like that. Idk, it's weird. 

(Lol, I'm not explaining myself well either.)


----------



## sometimes (Dec 26, 2013)

I think I have quite a strong sense of trends and what's popular. But I don't get why someone would confuse what they like with what's popular. I definitely don't do that. I'm very interested in pop culture and trends but that doesn't mean I neccessarily like everything that's popular. I don't get that?. I'm would only really alter my tastes if my SO likes or dislikes certain things I will subconsciously want to think the same as them. So maybe what you describe of confusing what's popular and what they like is more of a Social instinct thing. I'm either sp/sx or sx/sp. but even with an SO/partner or an extremely close friend it's more about changing my perspective/tastes slightly but only in the realm of my own potential perspective as there are certain things which I know I just like or dislike. But yeah I don't know what type I am but I tend to 'merge' my tastes to a certain extent with an SO and not with what's popular but I feel like am aware of it. I didn't think being aware of stuff like was really a special skill though? I thought it was just more of an interest and I thought I just happen to notice and interested in it. This kinda discussion is interesting though anyway.


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Rose for a Heart said:


> @Phoenix Virtue I find it hard to communicate with my 6 friend (tritype 468 instincts prob sp/so or so/sp) who ALWAYS refers to someone as belonging to a group. Oh they are "reactionaries," or oh they are "white hippies" lol, and I am like "what does that mean?!" and she comes up with an entire array of characteristics, including their political leanings, what kind of people they are etc., just from that categorization. I don't think in stereotypes usually, I think more in terms of the individual. But I disagree that they are not attuned to their _personal music_, so to speak. She is a poet and knows well what she personally likes and dislikes. I don't think she even listens to pop songs, I wonder if that's more so/sx.


Heh, I think in stereotypes quite a bit! I don't do it in an "us vs them" way, but I'll always comment that "they're a conspiracy theorist" or "they're the kind of person whose desire to lead overreaches their talent". 

I think of people in "kinds", definitely. Some of that may be the attachment triad thing--I'm triple attachment after all--but it seems more related to my So-dominance to me. Everybody in groups.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Phoenix Virtue said:


> Not sure if I'm explaining myself properly. My point, if I have a point, is that there seems, in the attachment triad, to be some sort of sensor for an objective quality of goodness, which imo translates to things being more...'normal'. Attachment types seem to me to understand what is normal much more easily than most others, and on a different level. Granted Threes seem to do it in a more competitive/critiquing way, Sixes in a more blending way, and Nines in a more...non-judgmental way, but regardless there seems to be some quality between them that is 'in the know' as to what is normal and what is not.


I think I agree. Personally, I have a great idea of what the norm is, what the most socially acceptable way for someone to be is, and so on. What sorts of actions these people take and what activities they are into. There might be differences between the "norm" in different contexts, and I'm cognizant of this as well. It's strange because a lot of the people I am close to are rejection or frustration types, and they always seem to take issue with this sort of generalization because they don't understand how I arrive at that. They tend to argue that you can never form a generalization of that sort because there are too many factors and anomalies. Even when they understand the generalization, they don't pay much attention to it because they are not as concerned with adapting to these norms. 

It's troublesome to be so aware of what the norm always is, because it makes me feel compelled to be like the norm to blend in. I rarely ever manage to blend in because I get caught in the period of self-doubt rather than really changing my personality, because while I want to fit in, I also hate stripping away my identity. It's a really fine line, and I often have issues telling what my own passions in life truly are, because I'm so influenced by what I SHOULD do or SHOULD be. It's strange though, that despite being so aware of and affected by norms, not a lot of people would consider me exemplary of the norm at all. I rarely adapt, though I feel compelled to. 

But if you were to ask me what I like about something, like X music or movie or clothing style, I'd have a very easy time answering that question, and elaborately, at that. While my sense of identity is affected by the norms, my opinions certainly are not 



Rose for a Heart said:


> @*Phoenix Virtue* I find it hard to communicate with my 6 friend (tritype 468 instincts prob sp/so or so/sp) who ALWAYS refers to someone as belonging to a group. Oh they are "reactionaries," or oh they are "white hippies" lol, and I am like "what does that mean?!" and she comes up with an entire array of characteristics, including their political leanings, what kind of people they are etc., just from that categorization. I don't think in stereotypes usually, I think more in terms of the individual. But I disagree that they are not attuned to their _personal music_, so to speak. She is a poet and knows well what she personally likes and dislikes. I don't think she even listens to pop songs, I wonder if that's more so/sx.



Hmm, maybe your friend could be an aristocrat in Socionics? I think it offers a nice explanation for categorization of this sort. 

Democratic and aristocratic - Wikisocion

Personally, I don't think in terms of these groupings at all. It's very alien for me to think that way.


----------



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

Night Huntress said:


> Hmm, maybe your friend could be an aristocrat in Socionics? I think it offers a nice explanation for categorization of this sort.
> 
> Democratic and aristocratic - Wikisocion
> 
> Personally, I don't think in terms of these groupings at all. It's very alien for me to think that way​




Idk, socionics is weird. I can see her clearly as aristocratic, but not myself (pretty certain on EII for me). I can see people belonging to a group but I judge them as individuals.​


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Yeah. This is funny to think about. As small as my sample is, that reminds me of my 9 friend and her 6 sister. It is a kind of 'note' in focus- they are the two I know who are most likely to shed light on things like that. I used to think part of it might be tied to strong social consciousness but it's really not. I agree with you @*Floette*, that annoys me too. Or when you're with someone and they emphasize it; "god, we're so weird, look at us?" It's actually really frustrating to me. 

I get bothered by the assumption that not paying close ties to those norms is a sign of rebellion. That if you're not going along with that flow, or aware of it, that you're purposely going against it to 'prove a point'. Not that I'm not socially conscious (strong discomfort here- I'll even move across the street to prevent people from hearing my conversations) but when it comes to preferences, how far someone is 'in the loop' with that, it usually flies by my head. I had the 9 friend bring up to me, a few months ago, about how she was talking to her friend about how I go hiking in flip flops and a dress. There is literally nothing wrong with that. If I feel comfortable like that, why on earth is there something wrong with that? Why even talk about that? I don't like sneakers and refuse to buy sneakers, and it's not to stand out or to deviate and rebel. It is a preference that has 0 to do with anyone else. Or that there's some kind of 'bravery' that's tied to not doing that, even though it's a half-ass "nope" preference.

^ (mainly vent) but a focus on that irritates me and I wish people would hold that shit in. Same thing with another friend who was talking about mainstream music, and says that those who hate it just hate it because it's cool to hate it. Maybe they just don't actually like it themselves? Why does it need to revolve around that consensus, regardless of what side of the scale the focus is on?

But yeah. Interesting thread


----------



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

@O_o I relate to what you are saying haha

I love wearing dresses all the time, and people are all "you are so dressed up!"...and I feel ashamed like I did something wrong? I just like wearing dresses that's all lol. And this one time one guy was asking me about the popular shows on netflix and I was like I don't like most of them (seriously though, they are bad), and he goes "hmm you just don't like the popular shows huh?" and I resent that because it implies I am somehow doing it just to rebel, when in fact it's simply a personal preference. I didn't take what he said personally though (as in, it didn't hurt me but it did annoy me).


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Rose for a Heart said:


> Idk, socionics is weird. I can see her clearly as aristocratic, but not myself (pretty certain on EII for me). I can see people belonging to a group but I judge them as individuals. [/INDENT]
> 
> [/COLOR]


EII is in fact aristocratic! Beta and Delta is.
I agree this sounds more like an aristocratic trait, though I'd guess some Enneagram things could come into play...
Typing as ESFJ rn but I relate to the aristocratic dichotomy more than the democratic, see...my OP

_______

Running out the door but want to add that I see my Three friend as the exception, not the rule)


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Rose for a Heart said:


> @** I relate to what you are saying haha
> 
> I love wearing dresses all the time, and people are all "you are so dressed up!"...and I feel ashamed like I did something wrong? I just like wearing dresses that's all lol. And this one time one guy was asking me about the popular shows on netflix and I was like I don't like most of them (seriously though, they are bad), and he goes "hmm you just don't like the popular shows huh?" and I resent that because it implies I am somehow doing it just to rebel, when in fact it's simply a personal preference. I didn't take what he said personally though (as in, it didn't hurt me but it did annoy me).


Exactly. Basically everything here ^, yeah.


----------



## inabox (Oct 3, 2015)

Ah, this is a fun thread. My dad's a 3 and my mom's a 6 and they're both sp/so s ; eh, I reckon I've been a hard child to raise, what with being 4 sx/sp , heh ...


----------



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

@Rose for a Heart
Lol, it seems people can be so weird when it comes to dresses. Then I get self-conscious about it even though I shouldn't give a shit. =P


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

Rose for a Heart said:


> @O_o I relate to what you are saying haha
> 
> I love wearing dresses all the time, and people are all "you are so dressed up!"...and I feel ashamed like I did something wrong? I just like wearing dresses that's all lol. And this one time one guy was asking me about the popular shows on netflix and I was like I don't like most of them (seriously though, they are bad), and he goes "hmm you just don't like the popular shows huh?" and I resent that because it implies I am somehow doing it just to rebel, when in fact it's simply a personal preference. I didn't take what he said personally though (as in, it didn't hurt me but it did annoy me).


I don't own many dresses, but I get the "dressed up" comments a ton. I've been consciously making sure to adapt my style to my age because otherwise I end up looking like I'm 17 going on 30. :wink: I just love layers, man.

(The adaption doesn't make me unhappy or anything. I think audience reaction is an important part of considering my fashion sense and so if I can look closer to the aura I want to project, I'm happier for it)

I never associate fashion style with rebellion or lack thereof, though. I remember sitting in car with my mom and she commented how this woman with purple hair "was overdoing the attention thing". And I responded, "Maybe that's just how she likes her hair!". I'll always defend punk styles even if it's not my personal preference.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

This dress thing used to happen to me all the time, now it never does, I wear dresses with the same frequency though (all the time)
Either I grew into my style or just getting older changed something or I look more slovenly now so it doesn't register D:
Slightly annoying but not too much. More just awkward to respond to


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

I, too, get self-conscious when people comment on me wearing a dress


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

6w5 - 3w4 - 9w1 is my current typing. INFP.

I wouldn't say I understand what songs are going to be popular at all. I do know what I find aesthetically pleasing isnt necessarily based on something I like about a song more than an overall feeling. My taste for music changes over time depending on my general state of mind.

I wouldn't describe a theme park as good either.


----------



## 0+n*1 (Sep 20, 2013)

I do that. My first reaction was negative but thinking about it made me realize I do. More than an awareness of what's normal, I'd say I pretend to understand what others may think or feel about things. And I do think I'm striving for objectivity. Sometimes I find myself unable to give my opinion about something because I feel compelled to say if it is objectively good or not. 'Did you like the movie?', 'It was good'. 

I also dislike when others say they are weird or crazy because of some pretty ordinary behavior. I roll my eyes thinking we are all normal. That is a recurrent thought. I believe most people are pretty normal or ordinary and that a lot of them cannot accept that truth. I recognize I don't feel special and that I envy those that live outstandingly, so I refrain from making these comments out loud because I know this is just an expression of those feelings and that ultimately what others think of themselves does not actually affect me and it shouldn't elicit a negative reaction.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Eh, I'd say this thread perpetuates the stereotype of attachment types being boring or mundane, therefore pushing anyone who is remotely artsy and unique to see themselves more in type as 4 or 5 descriptions instead. I'm not saying this is your intention OP, but the correlation you made will be interpreted as such by people who aren't as well-versed in the theory. Many 3s or 6s I've met aren't attracted to what's mainstream or socially acceptable, despite perhaps an awareness of what the status quo is - which honestly just sounds more like social-dominant or social-second instinctual stackings, rather than an indication of enneatype. A 3w4 I knew was all about dark, disturbing music & art, and constantly sought out what I thought were unique ways of expressing himself. Same for a 6w5 I dated. 

It really does seem like attachment types are the sensors of the enneagram community sometimes.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

kaleidoscope said:


> Eh, I'd say this thread perpetuates the stereotype of attachment types being boring or mundane, therefore pushing anyone who is remotely artsy and unique to see themselves more in type as 4 or 5 descriptions instead. I'm not saying this is your intention OP, but the correlation you made will be interpreted as such by people who aren't as well-versed in the theory. Many 3s or 6s I've met aren't attracted to what's mainstream or socially acceptable, despite perhaps an awareness of what the status quo is - which honestly just sounds more like social-dominant or social-second instinctual stackings, rather than an indication of enneatype. A 3w4 I knew was all about dark, disturbing music & art, and constantly sought out what I thought were unique ways of expressing himself. Same for a 6w5 I dated.
> 
> It really does seem like attachment types are the sensors of the enneagram community sometimes.


Well, I do not mean to perpetuate that stereotype - besides, there are far worse things you can be than boring or mundane.
I think there gets a sort-of fish-eye effect on this forum - I don't know if it has to do with which types of people are drawn here or with people trying to over-express their type...everyone writes themselves as some sort of combination of John Wayne and James Joyce :laughing: I mean, not really, but so much of what I see is so far from what I have ever encountered as part of reality. Lacking some attachment-y quality maybe. I think even without typing sx-first, 458, Ni-dom, there's some sort of unconscious pressure in the forum, to express yourself in a certain way or the idea won't get through. Hard to explain, but it sorta...distorts things imo. 

I've been trying to dial back from that sort of 'PerC mentality' and look at things more the way I would if I had stumbled on type theory in a book rather than on the Internet where there's immediately an evident hierarchy of types and all the politics which comes with that [which comes out directly, indirectly, etc] I don't see any reason why someone reading about Enneagram for the first time in a book would shy away from the attachment triad; I don't think real life or the world of literature et al has a bias against attachment qualities. It all seems Internet-generated, and self-reinforcing. I'm trying to look at the qualities of the types/triads/instincts somewhat more realistically [than I have been doing perhaps] and...really just in terms of components, etc. Attachment types do seem to have more of a relationship with the norm, that is part of what defines the triad. I think that's something worth exploring.

edit: That came off way more self-righteous than I meant it
I was just trying to explain where I was coming from :laughing:


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I mean...it's like every quality needs to be glorified on here for it to have meaning, it has to take on epic proportions

It's not that I think most or even really any people on here try to misrepresent themselves, there's just sorta this constant 'twisting' of things to be...larger-than-life I guess, hard to explain

Not twisting as in lying, just twisting as in twisting


----------



## Stellafera (Jan 19, 2015)

kaleidoscope said:


> It really does seem like attachment types are the sensors of the enneagram community sometimes.


Dunno, there's a LOT of people who identify as 9s and 6s. I could definitely see this description for 3s, though. People tend to describe how they're annoyed by how "shallow" and "fake" the type is. It's a shame because the "paste myself over with achievements so I'm not such a nobody" aspects are so fascinating to me and I'd like to see more of the type around the forum; feels like the 3 voice is rarely heard here.

Maybe it's because a lot of 3s have some difficulty opening up about themselves?


----------



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

@kaleidoscope I personally wouldn't type anyone an attachment type primarily because they understand the "norm," because their core has nothing to do with that from what I have read. I prefer to see people individually anyway... (Also I never understood why "artsy and misunderstood" = 4. That's not why I typed myself at 4. More like I just felt the entire profile describe me so perfectly I have never seen anything like it). Anyways, I think attachment types can be pretty cool...but @Phoenix Virtue is just observing some things that don't necessarily have to define every individual within that type.


----------



## sometimes (Dec 26, 2013)

3 - 6 - 9

Damn you're fine. 

(Lol sorry I'll leave now).


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

@Phoenix Virtue, YES. Normality so, so much. Typology as a whole is so full of exaggerations and comparisons to world leaders and Einstein/Tesla level geniuses it gets hard to find how the patterns are in everyday life, in normal people. The community's constant striving for dramatics doesn't help. I want more level-headed content :sad:


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

I've never really thought of myself as caring much about trends? However, there may be something to at least being aware of what's normal. The problem was that I've never really fit into that. I don't care about mainstream celebrities or popular music or anything like that. (And as far as music in general goes, I have an idiosyncratic relationship with it, but I don't want to veer off topic.) I just get interested in what I get interested in, and if someone actively tries to encourage me to get into something that just makes me less likely to actually get into it. At the same time, I'm painfully aware of how I'm not into what other people are into and I always feel left out when people start talking about pop culture that I'm not familiar with. (Seriously, want to know how strange I am? I've never seen Star Wars. I barely knew anything about rock music or the history of rock music until I took a college class on the subject. If you were to ask me about a celebrity I would more than likely only have surface knowledge or not even know who the hell they are.) There are several factors that could have made me this way, but the point is that I've always felt like a misfit because of it. 

Thinking of all this reminds me of this thread highlighting the differences between 4s and 6s. I'm a 6, but being aware of how you deviate from the norm may apply to attachment types in general and it could be why some more oddball 3s/6s/9s could mistype as 4s.

_(P.S. Correlating quality with popularity is a dumb mindset. _:tongue:_)_


----------



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

@*Stellafera*
Yeah, 3 tends to seem like one of the more interesting types to me (talking in theory, not so much about whether I would actually get along with one or not), but then I guess the nature of the type is also such that it can be a challenge to actually get the interesting things out of them.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

I tend to think of 3-6-9 'attachment' triad as the mediators of the enneagram. They are like some oil that lubricates its hinges and swivels. As such they tend to be aware of the multitude of opinions that exist around them and juggle and work with them. The other types seem more lopsided, having more of a singular focus to them. Perhaps this makes 'attachment' types appear as more objective with their opinions, while the other types come through as more subjective and in tune with their personal mission.


----------



## Syvelocin (Apr 4, 2014)

The ability to look at things objectively I agree with. I've often been in conflicts with people because they were ignorant to the objective value of something because their subjective opinion was so negative. I routinely encounter music I know is good music but I happen to dislike, or I have an odd sense of what is good or bad music of a genre I'm not all that into. I'm pretty aware of what is popular even though I dislike most of it. The thing that isn't me though is I can tell the difference between good and popular, quite easily.


----------



## Handsome Dyke (Oct 4, 2012)

ooooh, necropost. OP seems to have confused "objective" with "popular," a sense for which is quite predictable in socially-oriented types. Put these types in a foreign culture and they won't be so adept.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

DownWithWhitey said:


> ooooh, necropost. OP seems to have confused "objective" with "popular," a sense for which is quite predictable in socially-oriented types. Put these types in a foreign culture and they won't be so adept.


I meant objective as in 'not subjective', as in 'external'. Not really 'popular', I talked about that too.

I don't mean objective as in like Objective Truth


----------

