# the emotional center



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I have come to the conclusion that when people speak of the emotional or heart center, people interpret it too literally. The emotional center is not about being emotional or feeling in tune with ones emotions as much as it is a type of intelligence - specifically it's related to an ability to read emotions in oneself and others. In a more psychological sense it would relate to eq. Agree or disagree? 


@Necrophilous


----------



## enneathusiast (Dec 15, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I have come to the conclusion that when people speak of the emotional or heart center, people interpret it too literally. The emotional center is not about being emotional or feeling in tune with ones emotions as much as it is a type of intelligence - specifically it's related to an ability to read emotions in oneself and others. In a more psychological sense it would relate to eq. Agree or disagree?


I agree with that but think it's more. There's also a quality of stirring up the emotions, making them bigger (at least in types 2 and 4). I'm not sure how to describe it but I think on one hand they're amplified because they're paid attention to so closely. On the other hand it sometimes seems to be a narrative built up around a situation to the point that the true emotions are replaced by the emotions about the narrative rather than the actual emotions felt within the situation - feelings about the story (often linking with emotional memories) rather than simply feelings reflective of the moment.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

enneathusiast said:


> I agree with that but think it's more. There's also a quality of stirring up the emotions, making them bigger (at least in types 2 and 4). I'm not sure how to describe it but I think on one hand they're amplified because they're paid attention to so closely. On the other hand it sometimes seems to be a narrative built up around a situation to the point that the true emotions are replaced by the emotions about the narrative rather than the actual emotions felt within the situation - feelings about the story (often linking with emotional memories) rather than simply feelings reflective of the moment.


Well, I have to say I am surprised over how emotional type 3s can be when they allow themselves to be. The problem is their guarded nature which makes them seek shallow interactions which in turn may make them come across as overly shallow themselves and thus appearing to be without emotion or emotional depth by rather focusing on their achievements and accomplishments in interaction with others than talking about their actual feelings, desires, etc. I have to say I have experienced a very similar thing with type 2s. I am likely biased here because of my natural attraction and interest in type 4s, but only 4s seem to be really in tune with their emotions though of course as you say, I think the narrative is correct too. 4s create emotional narratives around their hurts.

Image-creation is in my opinion based on this limited understanding more a side-result of how image types appear image-y or image-focused rather than being their primary concern.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

It's more than just being familiar with or in tune with one's emotions, anyone can do that; and in fact, everyone _should_ do that. The difference lies in that heart types essentially establish their entire existence on their emotions, their emotions drive their lives. How that manifests is the difference between the three types.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> It's more than just being familiar with or in tune with one's emotions, anyone can do that; and in fact, everyone _should_ do that. The difference lies in that heart types essentially establish their entire existence on their emotions, their emotions drive their lives. How that manifests is difference between the three types.


Could you give examples? I think I understand type 2 and 4 but not quite 3.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Could you give examples? I think I understand type 2 and 4 but not quite 3.


3s are emotional, it's just not shown. They want to be loved and acknowledged but the only way they know how to acquire those things is by being successful. So they work hard, over-achieve, and kiss-ass. By way of their labors they hope for, if not expect, praise and admiration for their industrious nature and accomplishments.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> 3s are emotional, it's just not shown. They want to be loved and acknowledged but the only way they know how to acquire those things is by being successful. So they work hard, over-achieve, and kiss-ass. By way of their labors they hope for, if not expect, praise and admiration for their industrious nature and accomplishments.


Hm, I know what you mean because I have seen this but I am unsure how it would operate logically. So kind of like acting on emotion, that action is based on feeling or to create feeling?

I feel too retarded to really understand this derp, as I am just now becoming aware of what a blind spot this is for me.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Hm, I know what you mean because I have seen this but I am unsure how it would operate logically. So kind of like acting on emotion, that action is based on feeling or to create feeling?


 Emotions aren't logical. 3s want to feel happy and loved just as much as 2s and 4s do, it's the process of how they acquire that happiness and love that differs. 3s act because they don't know how else to acquire love and happiness. 2s purposely go out of their way to accommodate others to acquire love, 4s focus on their unique character to acquire love. 

Obviously I'm simplifying things, and I'm not a 3, so I could be completely wrong; but from the 3s I know, and a particularly good friend of mine who's a 3, I think I'm accurate in describing their nature.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

JSRS01 said:


> Emotions aren't logical.


I wanted to suggest logical from my end, not from theirs. I'm logical - how can I conceptualize the type logically?



> 3s want to feel happy and loved just as much as 2s and 4s do, it's the process of how they acquire that happiness and love that differs. 3s act because they don't know how else to acquire love and happiness. 2s purposely go out of their way to accommodate others to acquire love, 4s focus on their unique character to acquire love.
> 
> Obviously I'm simplifying things, and I'm not a 3, so I could be completely wrong; but from the 3s I know, and a particularly good friend of mine who's a 3, I think I'm accurate in describing their nature.


No, I don't think you're off. I know a type 3 and I see similarities in what you describe. The heart types baffle me.


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I wanted to suggest logical from my end, not from theirs. I'm logical - how can I conceptualize the type logically?


Ha, right. 





> No, I don't think you're off. I know a type 3 and I see similarities in what you describe.* The heart types baffle me.*


I don't think I can help you there. :wink:


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

i think a certain focus can end in a certain intelligence, but i wouldn't say they all relate to eq. if they did, "eq" would have to be split, with each measuring high in one end, and lower in others (that may actually be the case; i'm going off a gist of the term)...

to the point at which a 3's emotional intelligence (for example--going by the complex, and not a fully fleshed out person) would be so tied to the outer world, that whatever was inside would have to meld in relation--or be a supporting fixture--to what's around the person (as long as doing so satisfied and completed that link, and did not bring attention to the part of them that is so willing to change, and to manifest as "what is necessary for validation"). 

i don't know many threes, and i do agree that it takes a fair amount of a certain kind of intelligence to never miss a beat--and to turn a situation in their favor, or to intuitively know what will charm another person--but that it itself is just a facet to the concept. if we dug really hard, i think we could make an argument for all the types and their various distinctions of eq. (i know this was kinda/sorta done with each types specific brand of intuition).


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

You are saying Fe is your emotional center and that's fine, but it's not mine. People with Fe read emotions and analyze them with wordy Ti explanation. People with Fi are the first thing you describe.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

JSRS01 said:


> It's more than just being familiar with or in tune with one's emotions, anyone can do that; and in fact, everyone _should_ do that. The difference lies in that heart types essentially establish their entire existence on their emotions, their emotions drive their lives. How that manifests is the difference between the three types.


I disagree. Some people don't know how they feel, and as someone very in touch with my own feelings and ethics and those I empathize with, I am baffled by the wordy subtle read of random other people's feelings of Fe. 

Fi is strongly guided by an inner compass and philosophical questions of ethics, Fe is more concerned with reading and accommodation.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Donovan said:


> i think a certain focus can end in a certain intelligence, but i wouldn't say they all relate to eq. if they did, "eq" would have to be split, with each measuring high in one end, and lower in others (that may actually be the case; i'm going off a gist of the term)...
> 
> to the point at which a 3's emotional intelligence (for example--going by the complex, and not a fully fleshed out person) would be so tied to the outer world, that whatever was inside would have to meld in relation--or be a supporting fixture--to what's around the person (as long as doing so satisfied and completed that link, and did not bring attention to the part of them that is so willing to change, and to manifest as "what is necessary for validation").
> 
> i don't know many threes, and i do agree that it takes a fair amount of a certain kind of intelligence to never miss a beat--and to turn a situation in their favor, or to intuitively know what will charm another person--but that it itself is just a facet to the concept. if we dug really hard, i think we could make an argument for all the types and their various distinctions of eq. (i know this was kinda/sorta done with each types specific brand of intuition).


Well, I was told earlier this year that I have a high EQ because I am very sensitive/aware of my own and other people's boundaries among other things, and I used the word loosely obviously. Just that after speaking in-depth to a 3, their relationship to the social is much more complex, dynamic and developed than my own. Same goes with a 2 that I know. It's really becoming increasingly apparent of what a sore spot this is for me, which is what makes integration an interesting concept because I am beginning to see that the problem is precisely my difficulty or perhaps to a degree, inability to shape myself to suit my environment or at least adapt/move in it the way the emotional center does it. And that is exactly what a type 2 does seamlessly. Whereas I say something I think is honest and direct my words often have a hurtful impact and even when I try to help people I end up asserting my own POV onto them anyway. 



fourtines said:


> You are saying Fe is your emotional center and that's fine, but it's not mine. People with Fe read emotions and analyze them with wordy Ti explanation. People with Fi are the first thing you describe.


You are still going to quip around that silly paranoia idea you have that I am a Ti type? Rest assured because I am strikingly not. Lack of social grace is not unique to inferior Fe types. My problems got nothing to do with Fe.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> Well, I was told earlier this year that I have a high EQ because I am very sensitive/aware of my own and other people's boundaries among other things, and I used the word loosely obviously. Just that after speaking in-depth to a 3, their relationship to the social is much more complex, dynamic and developed than my own. Same goes with a 2 that I know. It's really becoming increasingly apparent of what a sore spot this is for me, which is what makes integration an interesting concept because I am beginning to see that the problem is precisely my difficulty or perhaps to a degree, inability to shape myself to suit my environment or at least adapt/move in it the way the emotional center does it. And that is exactly what a type 2 does seamlessly. Whereas I say something I think is honest and direct my words often have a hurtful impact and even when I try to help people I end up asserting my own POV onto them anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> You are still going to quip around that silly paranoia idea you have that I am a Ti type? Rest assured because I am strikingly not. Lack of social grace is not unique to inferior Fe types. My problems got nothing to do with Fe.


It's not Ni paranoia. I read Nevada Barr novels and she writes entire paragraphs on people's body language. She's a deeply interesting ISTP past middle age. She almost rides the ISTP/INFJ line at sixty. I cannot fathom ever being that good at reading people's faces. My ESFJ ex bf could at 25.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

fourtines said:


> It's not Ni paranoia. I read Nevada Barr novels and she writes entire paragraphs on people's body language. She's a deeply interesting ISTP past middle age. She almost rides the ISTP/INFJ line at sixty. I cannot fathom ever being that good at reading people's faces. My ESFJ ex bf could at 25.


And please tell me how that's relevant how? You are being paranoid. You are acting as if you saw the emperor naked except the only one who thinks so is you and you think so because you actually don't understand the damn theories and how to conceptualize them externally as well as you think you do.

How many times haven't you changed your opinion on my type now? Ti, Te, Ti. You keep looking for evidence to support your case instead of looking at the evidence that _is_ there. Except for some other silly people like you, it's really evident that I'm Fi-Te and Ni dominant.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I have come to the conclusion that when people speak of the emotional or heart center, people interpret it too literally. The emotional center is not about being emotional or feeling in tune with ones emotions as much as it is a type of intelligence - specifically it's related to an ability to read emotions in oneself and others. In a more psychological sense it would relate to eq. Agree or disagree?


Ephem, out of curiosity are you drawing a distinction between feelings and emotions? I do not see them as the same; a feeling to me is more like a conviction, a gut instinct, or simply the feeling that "this is what I must do"/right course of action. Whereas emotions are more temperamental, like the weather: I am happy, sad, angry, anhedonic, etc.)... I tend to see the image types as centering more around feeling, yes, but I think of feeling in the Jungian sense of a _*rational*_ cognitive process. I have read that dom/aux-Thinking types tend to experience the feeling functions differently than dom/aux-Feeling types and that it tends to be more experienced as "pure emotion." 

Regardless, I do agree the image types in general fixate on matters of feeling as a rational process (value). OrangeAppled said here: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/174096-triad-themes.html



OA said:


> *Heart (feeling) - 2,3,4
> World Doesn't Love ---> ashamed of unlovableness, develops image to attract love
> 2 - not enough love to go around, pride in "creating" and giving love
> 3 - not worthy of love, achieve & become worthy, vanity is self-love to make up for lack of love
> 4 - not significant enough to be loved, lacking some basic thing others have, create meaningful identity to attract love via savior*


All image types tend to focus/dwell/build their identities on their value, whether they are loved, appreciated, etc., either in the eyes of others, or what they themselves perceive as their "worth" (self-worth). This is the domain of feeling, I think, because, regardless of subjective or objective attitude (i.e., Fe vs. Fi), the fixation is on "am I valuable?" Am I liked? Disliked? Admired? Loved? Useful? Significant? Unique? Honest? Etc.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

hal0hal0 said:


> Ephem, out of curiosity are you drawing a distinction between feelings and emotions?


No, not in this situation. I was just referring to a colloquial understanding where they'd be interchangeable. If you want to distinguish them from another be my guest.



> I do not see them as the same; a feeling to me is more like a conviction, a gut instinct, or simply the feeling that "this is what I must do"/right course of action. Whereas emotions are more temperamental, like the weather: I am happy, sad, angry, anhedonic, etc.)... I tend to see the image types as centering more around feeling, yes, but I think of feeling in the Jungian sense of a _*rational*_ cognitive process. I have read that dom/aux-Thinking types tend to experience the feeling functions differently than dom/aux-Feeling types and that it tends to be more experienced as "pure emotion."


Right, more of a Jungian distinction then. 



> Regardless, I do agree the image types in general fixate on matters of feeling as a rational process (value). OrangeAppled said here: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/174096-triad-themes.html
> 
> 
> 
> All image types tend to focus/dwell/build their identities on their value, whether they are loved, appreciated, etc., either in the eyes of others, or what they themselves perceive as their "worth" (self-worth). This is the domain of feeling, I think, because, regardless of subjective or objective attitude (i.e., Fe vs. Fi), the fixation is on "am I valuable?" Am I liked? Disliked? Admired? Loved? Useful? Significant? Unique? Honest? Etc.


Thanks, yes, that makes sense to me the little I've observed in people. How do we separate this from the other intelligence centers though?


----------



## Blystone (Oct 11, 2012)

fourtines said:


> I disagree. Some people don't know how they feel, and as someone very in touch with my own feelings and ethics and those I empathize with, I am baffled by the wordy subtle read of random other people's feelings of Fe.
> 
> Fi is strongly guided by an inner compass and philosophical questions of ethics, Fe is more concerned with reading and accommodation.


What exactly do you disagree with? Nothing you said was in opposition to my post.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

ephemereality said:


> And please tell me how that's relevant how? You are being paranoid. You are acting as if you saw the emperor naked except the only one who thinks so is you and you think so because you actually don't understand the damn theories and how to conceptualize them externally as well as you think you do.
> 
> How many times haven't you changed your opinion on my type now? Ti, Te, Ti. You keep looking for evidence to support your case instead of looking at the evidence that _is_ there. Except for some other silly people like you, it's really evident that I'm Fi-Te and Ni dominant.


Are you smoking crack? Nothing I said was about you. How am I being paranoid, you are the one who thinks my posts are about you personally.

In my opinion you were describing Fe as eq, and I explained why, and how that can be manifested even in a Ti type.


----------

