# Most vindictive type?



## superdude (Dec 15, 2015)

Which enneagram type can be most vindictive? I do not want to associate it with that person, but a good example is the son from godfather who came back years later and killed the old man even though he was an old man. He wanted revenge and still cared about it years later.

I would define my question as a feeling that makes you want to seek out revenge. It is not your goal but if someone wrongs you, you will harm him twice as much or more. You might say something like "he will be sorry to have done this to me" and you don't just say it. You always go through with it no matter how wrong or bad it is.

I would say type 1, but I know for sure that at least for a few people who I know are like this, it is not related to the sense of justice at all.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

I think unhealthy type 2's. But I can definitely see/agree on type one's being vindictive.


----------



## superdude (Dec 15, 2015)

Gossip Goat said:


> I think unhealthy type 2's. But I can definitely see/agree on type one's being vindictive.


I think for a 2 it's more about image. I know there were type 2 girls back in college days who would crush the guys somehow if they hurt their social image. I can be wrong, it's just something I remember...

Carry on!


----------



## Philathea (Feb 16, 2015)

If you hurt me I kill you.

Not really (because that's illegal). If you hurt me, I never let you know you did. I become completely indifferent to you. You could live or die, it doesn't matter. I make it clear you mean nothing to me-- but it isn't true, you mean something or I wouldn't care about hurting you.

I'm a 4, and I suspect type 4 would be pretty high up on the list. Image types in general are very triggered by rejection or anything that reminds them of their core fear of being worthless.


----------



## superdude (Dec 15, 2015)

Philathea said:


> If you hurt me I kill you.
> 
> Not really (because that's illegal). If you hurt me, I never let you know you did. I become completely indifferent to you. You could live or die, it doesn't matter. I make it clear you mean nothing to me-- but it isn't true, you mean something or I wouldn't care about hurting you.
> 
> I'm a 4, and I suspect type 4 would be pretty high up on the list. Image types in general are very triggered by rejection or anything that reminds them of their core fear of being worthless.


I'm not sure if it's about 4 or INFP, but that's not vindictiveness in my book. Not unless you value yourself so highly that you feel like you're so important that he'll tear his hair out.

Could be that as a 4 you react back with rejection, I've seen that but ironically I saw that in type 4 INFPs...


----------



## Philathea (Feb 16, 2015)

superdude said:


> I'm not sure if it's about 4 or INFP, but that's not vindictiveness in my book. Not unless you value yourself so highly that you feel like you're so important that he'll tear his hair out.
> 
> Could be that as a 4 you react back with rejection, I've seen that but ironically I saw that in type 4 INFPs...


Ah, my mistake then. And yes, it is definitely a reaction to a perceived rejection.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

disposed or inclined to revenge; vengeful: a *vindictive* person.


Vindictive includes an element of DOING something about the anger, and is about retribution 

6 is my vote for most vindictive

then 8. 

maybe equal, but for different reasons.


----------



## superdude (Dec 15, 2015)

drmiller100 said:


> disposed or inclined to revenge; vengeful: a *vindictive* person.
> 
> 
> Vindictive includes an element of DOING something about the anger, and is about retribution
> ...


Yes, social justice is what 1 would do I think. But what about "I want to hurt you because you hurt me" kind of deal? It has nothing to do with justice or even being angry.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

My mother is a 2. She'd kill your dog to get back at you for "hurting her". 

I think 2s are the most selfish for it. They only go evil mode when hurt.

1/6 would be a idealist sort of thing. Truth and justice etc. 

8 could be idealist as well in a protection/defence/offence way.


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

Revenge is the fixation of 8, according to Riso and Hudson.


----------



## superdude (Dec 15, 2015)

screamofconscious said:


> Revenge is the fixation of 8, according to Riso and Hudson.


Could you elaboratE?


----------



## screamofconscious (Oct 15, 2009)

superdude said:


> Could you elaboratE?


Well the fixation is a reaction to the loss of the Holy Idea respective to their types. Type 8's fixation with vengeance can easily play out as exacting revenge on others. At the same time, the patterns of the fixation can translate to the surly temperament associated with 8's. It's as if they feel they have to fight for what they want in order to get by in the world. It plays out as retribution rather than justice at lower levels of health.​


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I think...8 first because they tend to feel wronged and justified in their wrongedness.
Then 4 for somewhat similar reasons, what @Philathea said makes a lot of sense.
2 then? Although I never have been able to personally relate much to the concept of revenge. But lines to both 8 and 4 and concept "You owe me!" can lead to it
6 maybe equal to 2, just because
1 maybe pretty high (justice and all that)
Then 3
Then 5
Then 9
Then 7

I guess


----------



## periwinklepromise (Jan 26, 2015)

superdude said:


> Which enneagram type can be most vindictive? ...I would define my question as a feeling that makes you want to seek out revenge. It is not your goal but if someone wrongs you, you will harm him twice as much or more. You might say something like "he will be sorry to have done this to me" and you don't just say it. You always go through with it no matter how wrong or bad it is.


This tends to be how I use the term vindictive - it's specifically when *you* are the hurt party. 

As such, I see the most vindictive types as 2 and 4. Both types have a sense of entitlement - they believe they deserve all the good things they want and none of the bad things they get. (4s tend to vacillate between entitled elitism and dangerously low self-esteem; I'm not speaking of the latter, currently.) Because of this, they often seek to punish those who treat them wrongly. Sx-first 4s are often labeled Vengeance (or alternately, Hatred. EESH.).

Because of this use, I also don't consider 8s to be particularly vindictive. In my studies and experience, 8s limit their justice-making to others (the Innocents that are worthy of protection and goodness), not themselves.

And fwiw, I consider Justice to be an 8 thing, NOT a 1 thing.


----------



## superdude (Dec 15, 2015)

periwinklepromise said:


> This tends to be how I use the term vindictive - it's specifically when *you* are the hurt party.
> 
> As such, I see the most vindictive types as 2 and 4. Both types have a sense of entitlement - they believe they deserve all the good things they want and none of the bad things they get. (4s tend to vacillate between entitled elitism and dangerously low self-esteem; I'm not speaking of the latter, currently.) Because of this, they often seek to punish those who treat them wrongly. Sx-first 4s are often labeled Vengeance (or alternately, Hatred. EESH.).
> 
> ...


Does that mean that you consider 8s selfless types even when they are not Fe (like you)?


----------



## newbie const (Nov 26, 2015)

Variants come into the scene here..Sp-firsts let things go most easily..most vindictive stacking is either So/sp or Sx/so.
Actually I think any type can be vindictive if they really got a huge shock.
But in my opinion,the sequence is like this:8=1>2=6>4>7=3>5>9,


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

screamofconscious said:


> At the same time, the patterns of the fixation can translate to the surly temperament associated with 8's. It's as if they feel they have to fight for what they want in order to get by in the world. It plays out as retribution rather than justice at lower levels of health.​


this IMO is an 8 seen through a 6 filter. 

I actually LIKE fighting sometimes. I like destroying an asshole. 

I don't have to fight for what I want. It all comes pretty easy when I get around to working for it. And to me, the world is a VERY safe place for ME. 

The world is NOT a safe place for the weak, the innocent, and it is worth providing a bit of shelter and quiet for those who want those things as it makes the world a better place.


----------



## Daeva (Apr 18, 2011)

periwinklepromise said:


> And fwiw, I consider Justice to be an 8 thing, NOT a 1 thing.


Can't it be important for both?


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

superdude said:


> Which enneagram type can be most vindictive? I do not want to associate it with that person, but a good example is the son from godfather who came back years later and killed the old man even though he was an old man. He wanted revenge and still cared about it years later.
> 
> I would define my question as a feeling that makes you want to seek out revenge. It is not your goal but if someone wrongs you, you will harm him twice as much or more. You might say something like "he will be sorry to have done this to me" and you don't just say it. You always go through with it no matter how wrong or bad it is.
> 
> I would say type 1, but I know for sure that at least for a few people who I know are like this, it is not related to the sense of justice at all.


in order:
1) SEXUAL FOUR!!!
2) Sexual 6 (especially with a 5 wing)
3) 2s
4) Sexual 1s (especially with a 2 wing)


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

periwinklepromise said:


> This tends to be how I use the term vindictive - it's specifically when *you* are the hurt party.
> As such, I see the most vindictive types as 2 and 4. Both types have a sense of entitlement - they believe they deserve all the good things they want and none of the bad things they get. (4s tend to vacillate between entitled elitism and dangerously low self-esteem; I'm not speaking of the latter, currently.) Because of this, they often seek to punish those who treat them wrongly. Sx-first 4s are often labeled Vengeance (or alternately, Hatred. EESH.).


good so far



> Because of this use, I also don't consider 8s to be particularly vindictive. In my studies and experience, 8s limit their justice-making to others (the Innocents that are worthy of protection and goodness), not themselves.
> And fwiw, I consider Justice to be an 8 thing, NOT a 1 thing.


1) your view of 8 is overly idealistic and altruistic. 8's bandwidth of those they extent protection to tends to be relatively narrow. they spend most of their time focusing on activities related to survival, acquisition or hedonism (to give them a rush. it's kind of a cheap substitute for the more tender emotions which they don't allow to affect them).
2) justice is indeed a 1 thing, especially a Sexual 1 thing. that's not to say that 8's aren't justice oriented too, but 8's sense of justice is more automatic, somewhat personal, typically related to something that affects them or "their people". most 8s have a healthy level of integrity and principles, but justice for 1s is a FIXATION.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Kerik_S said:


> I'm so glad you said this flat-out and explicitly at the end to sum it up. It's been an incredibly important part of my growth.
> 
> That trite platitude about "getting emotionally affected gives the other person power" actually can turn people who are simply processing their emotional reaction into people who are shaming themselves for having emotions.
> 
> ...


True.

Feeling vindicated is important to me but often times,the most vindicating feeling is the knowledge that the perpetrater is not worth a response. That they can't hurt you and while they stew in anger and misery they do not even egoist in your world and you are doing just fine without them.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

Book incoming, you've been warned bastards.



Kipposhi said:


> I agree with your whole post, but this statement in particular was my initial reaction. You'd think vindictive=revenge=8. But I think "vindictive" has a whiff of pettiness to it, which most 8s are not. You defined the two words already--vindictive is more unreasonable.
> 
> Therefore, I would associate vindictiveness most with 4s, particularly the Sexual 4 archetype. Perhaps angry disintegrating 2s. Many authors, however, describe the rage, jealousy, hostility, and vindictiveness of unhealthy 3s--so my money is on the entire image center.


Vindictive -having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge. 
I can't help but feel this is very 8 in the fact that the reaction is instant and unreasoned. There is a reason, but not always one that has been thought out until later.

Where the Vindictive we tend to associate (almost universally) - is indeed the "petty" unreasoned vindictiveness. 

It's why I didn't argue with our types seeming vindictive, because they do seem that way to most in the sense that the actions often seem unreasoned to onlookers, when in fact they are well reasoned. 

I'm going in circles. I imagine you get my point, and I know we don't actually disagree, just words man. Words are so hard for me. lol



series0 said:


> ooooo, sounds like an invitation to me. To bad the internet is in the way!


Psh. And here I was thinking an ENTP with a tritype like yours would have a more creative solution to the problem. lol
....I guess I had also heard your type had issues with follow through. 





Luck said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's super easy to see the appeal in vigilantism. I think this is where it is wise to remember that while we may feel we know all the angles we often do not. 







I think is wisdom in the face of wanting to good for goods sake.

Yet there is always an appeal to the badassery of:







DAPHNE LXIV said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have to ask, because I think i've had this issue before with people. I tend to look like a door mat. I let certain types have masses of space and room (especially 8s), I will bring a fight to them when I feel like they are starting to think they can just plough me over, or if I feel like they've actually done something with a negative intent. But I think some types, again, 8's frequently - say shit that hurt many people but was not meant to be hurtful.

Do you see this as weakness?


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Fumetsu said:


> True.
> 
> Feeling vindicated is important to me but often times,the most vindicating feeling is the knowledge that the perpetrater is not worth a response. That they can't hurt you and while they stew in anger and misery they do not even [exist] in your world and you are doing just fine without them.


Not being able to hurt you personally is one thing. Hurting other people is another thing.

Moreover, not letting things affect you is not the same as not giving a response - you can be affected and still choose not to respond. To pretend things don't affect you is delusional rubbish. The former is talking about pretending emotions don't exist, the latter is acknowledging them and dealing with them so as not to stew in anger.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Gilly said:


> I have to ask, because I think i've had this issue before with people. I tend to look like a door mat. I let certain types have masses of space and room (especially 8s), I will bring a fight to them when I feel like they are starting to think they can just plough me over, or if I feel like they've actually done something with a negative intent. But I think some types, again, 8's frequently - say shit that hurt many people but was not meant to be hurtful.
> 
> Do you see this as weakness?


Letting people walk all over you? Urgh yes. (Again, we have to take into account the situation - if you live in a totalitarian state, don't try standing up for yourself, and get yourself killed, k?)

But the form of weakness I hate the most operates more in a mental/emotional sphere - letting people manipulate you time and time over and then pretending it's okay because "things don't affect me." It goes back to the saying, "if you can't respect yourself, why should anyone else respect you?"

edit: Letting people walk all over is part of that mental/emotional sphere I was talking about - if people make you into a doormat, and you acknowlegde this, but choose to pretend "things don't affect me" omfg.... :exterminate:


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> Not being able to hurt you personally is one thing. Hurting other people is another thing.
> 
> Moreover, not letting things affect you is not the same as not giving a response - you can be affected and still choose not to respond. To pretend things don't affect you is delusional rubbish. The former is talking about pretending emotions don't exist, the latter is acknowledging them and dealing with them so as not to stew in anger.


Hurting others is obviously a different story. And if it's someone I care about, then I will fucking end them.

Yes the latter. Things do hurt but I can decide if it hurts enough that I should allow it to control me or if it's something that I can be pissed about for a few minutes and then get on with my life.


----------



## Another Lost Cause (Oct 6, 2015)

The problem with being vengeful is that it can get you into more trouble than it's worth, either with the law or other people in your life. Sometimes I wish the force was real so I could simply force choke certain assholes or throw them a 100 feet into the air and be done with them, and then simply walk away like nothing happened.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Fumetsu said:


> Hurting others is obviously a different story. And if it's someone I care about, then I will fucking end them.
> 
> Yes the latter. Things do hurt but I can decide if it hurts enough that I should allow it to control me or if it's something that I can be pissed about for a few minutes and then get on with my life.


This situation is not either or.

There are many ways to respond, and personally, I'd rather respond based on what I know will debase the 'opponent' more than anything. Sometimes, the most powerful thing you can do is ignore a person - but if you are in contact with someone who hates being ignored, that will just make them amp up their attempts to get a reaction. And people this pathetic are usually smart, they don't tend to work alone or they tend to affect more than _just _you personally by appealing to your wider social network. Would you ignore it then?

Plus, it also depends on time. Is it truly easy in your opinion to just _ignore _someone who has been in your life for a very long time when they do something awful? Let's say you've been married 25 years and your partner cheats on you, no one would blame you for being pissed about it for more than a "few minutes" so as not to appear controlled by this.

Moreoever, you can still completely be in control should you choose to enact vengenace, especially if your vengance is cunning and manipulative. Finally, we have the issue of enacting vengenace that is fair and equal to the pain someone caused you - if you do something to a person that hurts in the same way you were hurt, how can you say that what they have done is controlling you? It is not, because you were clearly in control enough to be able to be just in your retribution.

Basically, TL;DR: I hate the 'ignoring people is more powerful' - life is not that simple. My vindictiveness is dictated by what will secure my boundaries first and foremost, not what makes me look most morally superior - but then I'm a gut type, not an image type.

Or maybe the best response is the one that's most emotionally healthy? But again, that's not a clear cut thing. Different situations will call for different responses.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Yep. I'd ignore them hatder. Thier anger will eat away at them and I'm on my merry way whistling a jaunty tune 

That's a very serious issue. Obviously one that I could not just ignore but I'm speaking generally. I am not going to list every possible situation.

Sure you ca. I like to be in control by decided which bullshit I involve myself in and which I don't and in my circle that's what most conflicts are: bullshit. 
If something more serious comes along then yes, I will deal with it..." Properly.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Fumetsu said:


> Yep. I'd ignore them hatder. Thier anger will eat away at them and I'm on my merry way whistling a jaunty tune
> 
> That's a very serious issue. Obviously one that I could not just ignore but I'm speaking generally. I am not going to list every possible situation.
> 
> ...


Well we're different then. I'd rather strike a blow so hard they don't dare come back.

And I don't tend to like acting like I'm over something when I'm not - in the sense that, if I'm truly over something, then I'm over it. I wouldn't need to whistle jauntily to show how over it I am, I'd just be getting be getting on with my life you know?

I know I'm over a situation and not going to respond when I just don't care anymore. If I care, then I don't and can't do a very good job of pretending I don't. _This is the only form of weakness I am comfortable owning up to.:crazy:_


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

series0 said:


> Also there is the groupthink issue. In many cases 8s would do what they had to against another person. But they realize that the group will team up, or that the enemy will team up against their fair 1 v 1 assault. This reassessment allows the 8 to 'back down' realizing that the odds are too much against them for vindictiveness to be strong. I would say the 8 more often realizes the group will not give them a fair shake.
> 
> The 6 on the other hand right or wrong thinks the group will give them a fair shake. They are guilty often enough of groupthink. To me they are the most groupthink type of all. This actually blinds them to the group in a critical way. They associate the group with themselves. Then they incorrectly apply their value system to the group or vice versa seeing the two, the group and the self, as indistinguishable in the identity sense. Thus when, as is often the case, the values expressed by either the group or the individual are out of balance, especially morally, the 6 becomes the most blind person of all. So their vindictiveness, in fact any emotion they have at a certain point, is likely to be expressed in the supposed safety of the group, and yet, it is not safe and their emotion may be out of balance.


it's reading stuff like this that's made me think i'm not a 6. i tend to stay away from groups in general--being within them for benefit (life; being alive, it's an unfortunate "must"), sure--but never actually being _a part_ of them, in the sense of seeking belonging or adopting their beliefs/takes on life in the immediate/etc. 
i've always left with no problem when the group no longer suited me (with rare exceptions, doing so was no big deal)

it's always seemed like bullshit. like a play that people do, but don't realize that they're doing just that: putting on a show and playing make believe like when they were a kid, only now that they're a wise adult, they actually believe it all... (?)

also, i think a lot of what you've said (not to you personally--no offense--i realize you've read what there is to read and are just putting it up against reality, seeing what fits within your view), is also bullshit. everything you've listed i've personally seen within every type i've come across (and i've come across them all; not hard with only nine variations)...
and if it shows up in every type, to me, lacking your own compass to that degree, is human. all 9 types lack a compass of sorts, but what you've described is mindlessness, the common denominator, the masses: this is what we project onto, what we see ourselves as separate from and so put all the qualities we are not onto--and they may actually exist ("these people") outside of our very limited vision, but they span everything and only exist to begin with because they are _undifferentiated_... not because they are a certain type within the enneagram.

in the end, we strip types of what makes them a type, forget they are human outside of their particular mechanism (a mechanism that will only be as great or as pathetic as the person it calls home), and then take facets of humanity that aren't intrinsic to said mechanism and find ways to make them fit types as if it were ingrained in their foundations. 


in any case, this little dialogue has nothing to do with my type in the end: doesn't prove nor disprove--it's all a circle at the end, because we're always trying to make light of a limitless darkness... just remarking on something that i constantly see and whole heartedly disagree with. 

again, no offense. 


topic: 

i see the word vindictive a little differently. to me there's an balance. you push a metaphorical foot in one direction, the other person is now _within their rights_ to push that foot back in it's place bringing it to a mid-line of sorts, or even two feet to actually make it "fair". (notice, "fair" and not "right", as it won't be right to do so, but still completely understandable to do so). 
this is just normal behavior, and people enforcing their own boundaries in life, as to what they are okay, and are not okay with. 

now... there are people who want to push ten feet past that metaphorical line in response to the smallest centimeter-of-infractions... 
i'd call them narcissists; a person who cannot settle for being "spited" in any way, and so now has to rectify the situation in proportion to wounds that surround their own ego--or people who just made their way to a breaking point in life and fought for all the things they never allowed themselves to/were unable to in life. 

again, i've seen this in many types. i don't know if there is a 'most vindictive' type out there (regardless of what i've said prior in any thread). i think it just comes down to individuals and their ability to manage life effectively, as every type has it's own route towards vindication. 

/rant

might say more later. feel free to respond.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> Well we're different then. I'd rather strike a blow so hard they don't dare come back.
> 
> And I don't tend to like acting like I'm over something when I'm not - in the sense that, if I'm truly over something, then I'm over it. I wouldn't need to whistle jauntily to show how over it I am, I'd just be getting be getting on with my life you know?
> 
> Like I know I'm over a situation and not going to respond when I just don't care anymore. If I care, then I don't and can't do a very good job of pretending I don't. _This is the only form of weakness I am comfortable owning up to._



That's one way of dealing with it. Maybe if I knew more mature, worthy people I would feel the same way but to be honest I live in " tech city" a lot of people here are just so....underdeveloped emotionally that getting into a fight with them is just a waste of energy.

I can see why someone might want to " put them in thier place" but they already are and I'd rather not join them.

Yes, I know. It was just a turn of phrase. I don't actually do that.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Gilly said:


> Vindictive -having or showing a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge.
> I can't help but feel this is very 8 in the fact that the reaction is instant and unreasoned. There is a reason, but not always one that has been thought out until later.
> 
> Where the Vindictive we tend to associate (almost universally) - is indeed the "petty" unreasoned vindictiveness.


See I read the definition and just felt it was some sort of unreasonable emotional baseline, rather than an actual action. Somewhere on the level of "spiteful". OK well semantics. I get told I do it too much.

With 8s, they generally do express their sense of violation in the moment, stomp on toes if theirs have been stomped on. But it's not so much a _desire _then, as it is an instant response. In my experience--which anyone is free to discount--the times when I have really held a powerful desire for revenge, it's been extremely calculating and in proportion to the crime, not unreasoned at all.

So that was my reasoning on that.



> It's why I didn't argue with our types seeming vindictive, because they do seem that way to most in the sense that the actions often seem unreasoned to onlookers, when in fact they are well reasoned.


Yep, no idea how I appear to others. I think each type has its own logic, and if you're aware of what it is, there's a reason and rhyme to why people do what they do, even if it doesn't seem that way to people of other types.



> I'm going in circles. I imagine you get my point, and I know we don't actually disagree, just words man. Words are so hard for me. lol


Word.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

Kipposhi said:


> With 8s, they generally do express their sense of violation in the moment, stomp on toes if theirs have been stomped on. But it's not so much a _desire _then, as it is an instant response. In my experience--which anyone is free to discount--the times when I have really held a powerful desire for revenge, it's been extremely calculating and in proportion to the crime, not unreasoned at all.


What I wanted to say and couldn't find words to describe. Thanks <3



> Word.


Somehow this + your avatar = my giggles.

I also always get the impression this sort of thing would offend, you always seem so super serious (in my head).

* *


----------



## Luck (Nov 19, 2015)

Donovan said:


> ...this is just normal behavior, and people enforcing their own boundaries in life, as to what they are okay, and are not okay with.
> 
> now... there are people who want to push ten feet past that metaphorical line in response to the smallest centimeter-of-infractions...
> i'd call them narcissists; a person who cannot settle for being "spited" in any way, and so now has to rectify the situation in proportion to wounds that surround their own ego...


I agree. I'd add that with the narcissists it only has to be a perceived slight. Simply breathing around some of them deserves punishment. I call them punishers. Although it's often about defending their fragile ego, I sense that sometimes it's just about inflating their ego for fun. It seems like they can't help but use any power they have. They can't hold it in reserve like a healthy person. They get off on using it, power makes them feel more god like. It's for this reason I put them in the psycho category and never view their behavior as revenge in the normal 'by rights' sense.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gilly said:


> Psh. And here I was thinking an ENTP with a tritype like yours would have a more creative solution to the problem. lol
> ....I guess I had also heard your type had issues with follow through.


Ahhh, touche! I will stumble away and regroup. Please show proper courtesy and do not follow the blood trail.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

series0 said:


> Ahhh, touche! I will stumble away and regroup. Please show proper courtesy and do not follow the blood trail.


I shudder to think, if I ignored this courtesy I may be faced with the unfortunate reality of having to knock some poor unfortunate being upside the head out of mercy or nurse an unwilling victim back to health. 

Self imposed solitary confinement is usually best.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gilly said:


> I shudder to think, if I ignored this courtesy I may be faced with the unfortunate reality of having to knock some poor unfortunate being upside the head out of mercy or nurse an unwilling victim back to health.
> 
> Self imposed solitary confinement is usually best.


And how are we having this little tete a tete unless you have failed in showing proper courtesy? Hmmm ...


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Gilly said:


> Somehow this + your avatar = my giggles.
> 
> I also always get the impression this sort of thing would offend, you always seem so super serious (in my head).
> 
> ...


You'll have to take that up with @o0india0o who thinks I'm humorous about nearly everything.

I am very serious about enneagram information though. Would have helped me a lot if anyone had remotely been serious when explaining it to me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kerik_S said:


> Indeed. I've been working on consciously railing against any notion of "being affected is weak." And, as I adopt that attitude more, I actually incorporate it into my sense of _others-abusing-their-power (or simply misrepresenting the notion of strength)_ when I see someone else insist that being unaffected is some kind of ideal.
> 
> I'm especially irked by people who deliberately bait people emotionally and then make themselves out to seem more powerful by saying things like "Lol you're so invested." I had an altercation with someone on another forum and Ignored them for this reason. They weren't having it, and insisted that my being affected openly was some kind of show of "lacking self-awareness". It was a power-play, and I don't buy into that shit anymore.
> 
> It's now something I fight against.





Kerik_S said:


> I'm so glad you said this flat-out and explicitly at the end to sum it up. It's been an incredibly important part of my growth.
> 
> That trite platitude about "getting emotionally affected gives the other person power" actually can turn people who are simply processing their emotional reaction into people who are shaming themselves for having emotions.
> 
> ...


I agree that it's an unnecessary platitude and used against people who do react as a way to gain power over them by trying to remain unfazed themselves, pitting the reaction as somehow childish and immature but like you say, once that moment is pass, they will walk around being dickwads by being unconsciously controlled by the emotions they repressed in that moment. 

I agree with you also that for me, part of growth is definitely to begin to see the value in allowing yourself to feel affected but without judging it as either here nor there. Why should it? It's not right or wrong to feel, but how you use those feelings when dealing with people then yes, certainly, if it's done in the nature of vindication, revenge or other petty forms of expressions. Similarly, we can also use our feelings constructively, to heal, to build bridges and cross boundaries in healthy ways. I think in general there's a tendency to think of feelings as explicitly negative in influence, especially if they are of a negative character e.g. weakness, pain etc., but even feelings of pain when properly acknowledged can be used in meaningful ways when dealing with people by reinforcing positive results. So again, it's neither here nor there, but what we make of it. 

Feelings aren't weak, but using feelings in destructive ways and allowing those emotions to control our actions by not being able to rise above those feelings can definitely be weak.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Kerik_S said:


> Indeed. I've been working on consciously railing against any notion of "being affected is weak." And, as I adopt that attitude more, I actually incorporate it into my sense of _others-abusing-their-power (or simply misrepresenting the notion of strength)_ when I see someone else insist that being unaffected is some kind of ideal.
> 
> I'm especially irked by people who deliberately bait people emotionally and then make themselves out to seem more powerful by saying things like "Lol you're so invested." I had an altercation with someone on another forum and Ignored them for this reason. They weren't having it, and insisted that my being affected openly was some kind of show of "lacking self-awareness". It was a power-play, and I don't buy into that shit anymore.
> 
> It's now something I fight against.


Coincidentely, I also lolled to end our little debate, which was on this very forum, because I ain't go no time for that nonsense and attempt to hijack and derail a discussion. I had already stated my point so there wasn't anything to gain for me really, nor for my ego. I'm not going to debate someone who is fighting windmills (apparently after perceiving a damsel in distress -a desire to protect which I don't think is exclusive to type 8, for example Naranjo referred to Don Quixote in his description as an example of sx6 identification - who happens to be someone I highly regard, which I believe to be mutual, and whom on top of that I hold in my heart dearly as well), or perceived dick contest (for that I will refer to the designated thread in the spam forum) for disagreeing with your irrelevant generalizations and attributions.

You do come across as defensive rather than assertive, and I only need to stalk a few day's posts (which are many nevertheless) to see that pattern confirmed, as well as very eager (or invested if you will) to prove yourself. For instance in being apologetic (to justify without being asked for, which is defensive), which suggests a guilt complex that comes along with your (projected) hostility. * And this is not irrelevant when it comes to vindiction, and what spurs it * I didn't need to prove anything, I'm well aware of my prowess and limitations, I'm content with the acclaim I receive for the view that I offer (which includes the designated dicksize competition as mentioned above), but feel free to interpret lols at your convenience.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

series0 said:


> And how are we having this little tete a tete unless you have failed in showing proper courtesy? Hmmm ...


so many places to go with this one...
Watch it or we might get scolded by the op 

Fun times derailing threads. Lol. 



Kipposhi said:


> You'll have to take that up with @_o0india0o_ who thinks I'm humorous about nearly everything.
> 
> I am very serious about enneagram information though. Would have helped me a lot if anyone had remotely been serious when explaining it to me.


I have absolutely no doubt you're hilarious  getting to it that may or may not be the tricky part. Yet I can see how the enneagram forum might not be the best place to witness it. ^^ 

Were people not serious when you were getting started with enneagram? I'm surprised you stuck with it in that case >.<


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Gilly said:


> Fun times derailing threads. Lol.


I see rails as a sort of interesting challenge. Get off, get on, get off. There was another thread about doing things over and over again and expecting different results. _Expectation _is a strong word, maybe _hope _for new discoveries along the same path, smash pennies this time, yeah? Toxic chemical leak on the next derailing. mmmm ... 

Staying on topic, maybe we are giving the OP a chance to be vindictive.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Gilly said:


> I have absolutely no doubt you're hilarious  getting to it that may or may not be the tricky part. Yet I can see how the enneagram forum might not be the best place to witness it. ^^
> 
> Were people not serious when you were getting started with enneagram? I'm surprised you stuck with it in that case >.<


No, they were full of shit. And stereotypes. Both. So to get at the final answer, I read like 20 books. Then I came back online and just got super annoyed with roughly 50% of what people say about the types.


----------



## Gilly (Apr 22, 2012)

series0 said:


> I see rails as a sort of interesting challenge. Get off, get on, get off. There was another thread about doing things over and over again and expecting different results. _Expectation _is a strong word, maybe _hope _for new discoveries along the same path, smash pennies this time, yeah? Toxic chemical leak on the next derailing. mmmm ...
> 
> Staying on topic, maybe we are giving the OP a chance to be vindictive.


I have heard it said, that it's all about the journey and not the destination 
Maybe they never wanted different results, but a repeat once they discovered it wasn't the destination they had ever actually wanted at all. 

^^



Kipposhi said:


> No, they were full of shit. And stereotypes. Both. So to get at the final answer, I read like 20 books. Then I came back online and just got super annoyed with roughly 50% of what people say about the types.


I still see plenty of stereotypes. I do wonder now, if you can even remember any, how accurate you find my opinions on the different types.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Fumetsu said:


> That's one way of dealing with it. Maybe if I knew more mature, worthy people I would feel the same way but to be honest I live in " tech city" a lot of people here are just so....underdeveloped emotionally that getting into a fight with them is just a waste of energy.
> 
> I can see why someone might want to " put them in thier place" but they already are and I'd rather not join them.
> 
> Yes, I know. It was just a turn of phrase. I don't actually do that.


I don't know I've had the same experience, the less emotionally developed a person - the more they will go out of their way to get a response. 

So I indulge them 

It's like a game to me. The only thing that makes me not bother is if I just don't care.


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Gilly said:


> I still see plenty of stereotypes. I do wonder now, if you can even remember any, how accurate you find my opinions on the different types.


Tbh, I legitimately don't remember any. Actually, I think the posts of yours I remember are the ones where you're disbanding some of the more retarded statements about 6. Which is...awesome. One of the types that needs it the most.

I say, as long as what people say is based on experience, observation, and/or a sound understanding of the theory, anyone is entitled to their opinion. Problem is when people don't actually understand and wind up making statements based on their own mistypes, narrowly interpreted theory, or without consulting reality (eg, Threes are so superficial and fake! Especially social Threes! I hate them!). Confused newbies like I was (and people without access to more in depth info) get all kinds of notions, and a lot of it builds up subconsciously.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> I don't know I've had the same experience, the less emotionally developed a person - the more they will go out of their way to get a response.
> 
> So I indulge them
> 
> It's like a game to me. The only thing that makes me not bother is if I just don't care.



Yeah, that- most of the time, I just don't care.


----------



## ReadingBeaver (Dec 30, 2015)

Type 8 or a 2 that has disintegrated to 8


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Is it just me, or is there a disproportionate number of eights on this thread? I feel some kind of collective guilt/shame complex.

Emotional Competency - Anger


> *Anger* is a strong emotion designed to send the clear message “something has got to change”. It *is an urgent plea for justice and action.*
> ...
> However, the definition that seems to be most precise, and provides the most insight is:
> *Anger is an emotion,*
> ...


Suppose "will" corresponds to the body center, "image" corresponds to the heart center, and "thoughts" correspond to the head center. And let's just say that "sadness" is the _basic_ core emotion of the heart center, and "shame" is the _complex_ core emotion of the heart center.


> Sadness, as well as grief and depression, are other emotions arising from a loss. *The distinction between anger and sadness is the role of the “willful agent”.* An agent is someone who acted deliberately.


 Did @Kipposhi place money into the entire heart center? Type three's specific difficulty is "helpless", and image types are variations of type three. My theory is that they can't accept how powerless they are, especially when a "willful agent" is absent. So they found something to blame.

Honestly, I don't care too much about who is the most "vindictive" type. It _feels_ like a way to prematurely place blame on a group for no reason, all based on prejudiced perceptions. Whatever happened until "innocent until proven guilty"? This thread seems so backwards, like trying to establish guilt first and then people need to prove their innocence later.

Most eights and ones don't spend all of their waking hours obsessing over what is "just". And if you just try talking to them, many of them are willing to hear you out and adjust their own boundaries of justice. If they're rigid about it, then they're unhealthy. Most of them probably just want to live their lives in peace, with their boundaries not violated, and it generally takes conflict to trigger all of that reasoning. Just like how it would for any other type, especially since if they're not in the anger center themselves, then they have an internal connection to this center.

I guarantee you, speaking from personal experience, if you violate something important to anybody, then regardless of which type they are, then they will have reasons to be motivated by vengeance. They might carry it out in a way that you don't recognize as vengeful behavior though.

The interesting thing to me, in the pages of pages of philosophical discussion of what is "just", is that many people have different ideas on what is just. In most situations, many many factors are involved, so _how_ do you define what is "equal" or what is "proportional" or what is "appropriate"? You'd have to weigh different factors differently; perhaps even draw a line and establish some kind of merciful, forgiving "statute of limitations". What will hurt people will depend on what they value. Because people value different things, people perceive harm and offense differently, and therefore, trying to retaliate with or administer something "equal" will probably not be _perceived_ as equal to the other party. Most people have a "zero sum game" mindset, where giving _anything_ to one side means loss to the other. And others think "appropriate" "justice" is the death penalty for minor transgressions!

It starts with perceived, petty vindictive behavior, but vengeance escalates. Vengeance begets vengeance. "Blood feud" is familial vengeance that lasts for generations. And then there's people who get punished for "guilt by association". Parts of my family were war refugees from a totalitarian country, where entire bloodlines were killed by the government. Babies and children were killed to remove any possible future motives of vengeance. I live in the USA, where people find it acceptable to be armed with multiple firearms for "self-defense", while completely ignoring the possibility of innocent victims who could be hit by missed or stray gunfire. In this country, where people don't trust the police, so the citizens take justice into their own hands.

This is a pretty serious ethical topic that should probably be considered and discussed a bit more mindfully than saying "___ types are predisposed to vengeance". Depending the health of your society, it could very well be that one of the things to unite people across all types is by a collective motivation for vengeance.

What's "just" for society should be trying to find ways to end the cycles of vengeance, and I, for one, am willing to take some hits on my boundaries to try.

[HR][/HR]


DAPHNE LXIV said:


> There are many ways to respond, and personally, I'd rather respond based on what I know will debase the 'opponent' more than anything.


 Attacking the public image is humiliation. If they agree with your attacks, then they will feel shame (2->4). They might even take that time to assess their own self-worth. But more likely than not, they won't agree with your attack, and then that's just providing motive for vengeance (2->8).

Hello cycle of revenge. So hopefully that attack was so final that they avoid you forever, or else it's just going to be a cycle of vengeance that will get too boring and tiring to continue. The longer it goes on, the more likely that more people will get involved. It's just going to get nasty and messy.



> Sometimes, the most powerful thing you can do is ignore a person - but if you are in contact with someone who hates being ignored, that will just make them amp up their attempts to get a reaction.


 OMFG, I was in this situation. Cut off contact with a type three. Yet still, for the next _seven_ *years*, he had attempted to friend me on a social networking site at least once a year. Maybe once, I talked to him, and then found out from our mutual friends that he lied and talked shit about me behind my back. Then I continued to avoid him entirely.

I don't even know why I'm so important that he needs to stalk and harass me across multiple sites like that. He is very socially influential. Why can't I just be forgotten? And then I realized at the seven year mark, that *I'm *the one who's being petty. Sure, he is too, but so am I. Because I can just accept his friend request on whichever social network, and then continue to never talk to him ever again. Or silently delete him whenever I care enough to.

Learn the art of passive aggression. Sometime, it takes very little appeasement on my end to make them go away forever. Do what nines do: be physically there, don't talk much, appear agreeable, but on the inside, completely erase the other person's existence. It works great on average-unhealthy threes; they can't see the real you, and therefore, they won't know any better!



> And people this pathetic are usually smart, they don't tend to work alone or they tend to affect more than _just _you personally by appealing to your wider social network. Would you ignore it then?


 Sadly, sometimes it's not *my* social network as much as _our_ social network. You can still ignore the person themselves but still take counter-actions.


There will be people who will take their side. If most of the group is like this, then the battle is already lost. Just suck it up and endure while finding a way to leave.
There may be people who will take your side. Be the bigger person, be graceful, and take more dignified actions. Even if *you* want to ignore that other person, do not prevent your supporters from talking to them. Worse comes to worse, just hide in the crowd of people who can physically shield you from their attention.
There will be people who want to be neutral or will flip flop between both sides. Just set your personal boundaries to those people, tell them what your situation with this person is, and most of the time, they will know to never invite both of you two together in a room.
If they're trying to appeal to your social network using lies or misrepresentation, then record them or take screenshots. Find a way to portray yourself as the victim and show it to people.
If this person is a total bullshitter, then chances are good that most people already know it on some level. They just don't think that's a good enough reason to exile someone.
Otherwise, just do your best to become _generally_ persuasive, but don't take the time to acknowledge the other person's existence. The best thing to hope for is to solidify your supporters, turn some their supporters to your side, and if that's too much to ask, to turn some of their supporters to neutral.
If the other person extends an olive branch, then you should probably take it. That doesn't mean you're friends, it just means you're not actively at war. If you still dislike them, then find a way to be curt and civil. And when they're gone, continue to ignore them.



> Plus, it also depends on time. Is it truly easy in your opinion to just _ignore _someone who has been in your life for a very long time when they do something awful? Let's say you've been married 25 years and your partner cheats on you, no one would blame you for being pissed about it for more than a "few minutes" so as not to appear controlled by this.


 Well, if that happens, then that person will just become dead to me. I don't have to ignore them; they're dead! So take some time and space to isolate yourself and melodramatically mourn the dead. The death of the pure, good, and innocent marriage. This body who used to belong to your spouse is now controlled by a stranger. Who the fuck is this person?

But other people will be in complete and total denial about their partner cheating; other people accept it because marriage isn't about love for them; and other people will try to take them to court and take away everything that person has. Courts: institutionalized vengeance mediated by a third party.

On the other hand, if the cheating was a mistake, and they truly show regret and remorse, then is it worth it to throw out a 25 year marriage over a mistake, especially if they are cooperative and willing to work with you to restore trust? Unless "financial cheating" is a thing, and the person I'm with is secretly squirreling money away in order to help out another woman who has never been taught to be responsible with money: his mother. RAGE!



> Moreoever, you can still completely be in control should you choose to enact vengenace, especially if your vengance is cunning and manipulative. Finally, we have the issue of enacting vengenace that is fair and equal to the pain someone caused you - if you do something to a person that hurts in the same way you were hurt, how can you say that what they have done is controlling you? It is not, because you were clearly in control enough to be able to be just in your retribution.


 By the special properties of "everyone is unique", it's going to be very difficult to inflict pain back "in the same way you were hurt". Or maybe because every time I try to be controlled and hold myself back in my acts of vengeance, it _still_ comes across disproportional.



> Basically, TL;DR: I hate the 'ignoring people is more powerful' - life is not that simple. My vindictiveness is dictated by what will secure my boundaries first and foremost, not what makes me look most morally superior - but then I'm a gut type, not an image type.


 Flexible boundaries are powerful. There is a boundary around you, and boundaries around other people. However, in between those boundaries, in that empty space where the rest of the eight's physical energy normally flows into... You can use that space as a buffer. 

The boundary closest to you is the one you don't want people violating. The buffer zone is the area to slow people down. Temporarily allow people into the buffer zone to do business. You're not necessarily ignoring them, you're just saying that you're expecting them to leave.



DAPHNE LXIV said:


> And I don't tend to like acting like I'm over something when I'm not - in the sense that, if I'm truly over something, then I'm over it. I wouldn't need to whistle jauntily to show how over it I am, I'd just be getting be getting on with my life you know?


 You don't have to act like you're over it. A stiff body and face will communicate "I'm still upset, and that's why my body is in a defensive position, but I'm still willing to be civil and make attempts at communication if necessary. Just don't expect me to be friends with you."


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

@_cir_ , I know you meant well with your post, so please don't take this the wrong way - but I really don't need lecturing on how to deal with people. I wasn't looking for advice - I was just giving that other poster things to think about (in the form of questions) because I disagreed with her, I wasn't looking for someone to explain what I already consider common sense. What I do works for me, and I'm sure what you do works for you. Let's just leave it at that.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

8's are the most vindictive by miles. Sx 8's are the most explosive. Lol at that number 4. all they do is being angry emo style then do videos, poor them. Also 8's being hedonistic ? wow, lel. They want to provide comfort for those they care about. In their own ways. If it involve pleasure then so be it, but don't associate it with hedonistic, its all about *respect*.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> @cir , I know you meant well with your post, so please don't take this the wrong way -


 Ok. Same to you then. And I also thank you for being a cooperative conversation partner to help me demonstrate my point.



> but I really don't need lecturing on how to deal with people. I wasn't looking for advice


 This is an open, public forum. My "lecture" was directed to the general audience, including you if you so wish. If you felt like I was unjustly attacking you, then feel free to report my post. If you have no interest in it, then feel free to stop caring, ignore it, and move on with your life. If you'd like to add to the discussion, then feel free to do that as well.



> What I do works for me, and I'm sure what you do works for you. Let's just leave it at that.


 Try thinking about this the next time you:


> I was just giving that other poster things to think about (in the form of questions) because I disagreed with her


 Because I was just giving "you" (the open public) things to think about (apparently in the form of a lecture) because I saw where she was coming from. 



> I wasn't looking for someone to explain what I already consider common sense.


 Of course not. You disagreed with her, and instead of looking for understanding, you were looking to be right. I don't recall the other poster asking for advice, but it didn't stop you from trying to give her advice or lecture her on things to think about. In fact, let's look at the disparity or imbalance between the post that was replied to and your answer (one I replied to).


* *















The post that you replied to, in the four sentences that she wrote, did she ask for your advice? Did she even ask a question? I clearly see the conclusion you think your rhetorical questions should lead to, but I disagreed with you, and I tried to explain my reasoning (that you took as a lecture). Though I admit my response was a bit more escalatory, the disparity or imbalance in my response to your post was a _lot_ more even when compared to the disparity or imbalance of the previous response.


* *















Though you didn't ask for advice, you asked questions, and I tried to answer them. Questions: people try to answer them, especially in an open, public forum. If this was meant to be a private conversation, then that's what posting to their profile's wall or private messages are for.

So it's ok for you to give unsolicited advice to someone who didn't ask, who clearly showed a tone of apathy, which could have been surmised if you read her responses, the tone behind her responses, or saw the disparity or imbalance between her replies and your responses, but it's not ok for me to answer some questions you actually asked in a thread open to the public? Gotcha.

*Ladies and gentlemen: this is why trying to "even the score" doesn't work.*


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

cir said:


> Ok. Same to you then. And I also thank you for being a cooperative conversation partner to help me demonstrate my point.
> 
> This is an open, public forum. My "lecture" was directed to the general audience, including you if you so wish. If you felt like I was unjustly attacking you, then feel free to report my post. If you have no interest in it, then feel free to stop caring, ignore it, and move on with your life. If you'd like to add to the discussion, then feel free to do that as well.


You used a "you" there is no way for me to distinguish the personal you or third person objective you, I can't read your mind.
I didn't feel like you were unjustly attacking me, if I did, I would have said that - in fact I literally said: *i know you meant well so please don't take this the wrong way *- this is now the second time you have assumed intentions in my actions that don't exist. While I clearly was offering you the olive branch you refused to take. Irony much? 

I've already said in this thread that I don't ignore much, you shouldn't have been too surprised that was coming. Moreover, it took a few days for me to respond to you. So clearly my initial emotional response had passed, I simply responded because I wanted you to know. There was no emotion in my post, it's you that was reading it into it.



> Try thinking about this the next time you: Because I was just giving "you" (the open public) things to think about (apparently in the form of a lecture) because I saw where she was coming from.


Perhaps, you should make your audience clearer next time, then I don't need to think about anything because you would have made yourself clearer.



> Of course not. You disagreed with her, and instead of looking for understanding, you were looking to be right. I don't recall the other poster asking for advice, but it didn't stop you from trying to give her advice or lecture her on things to think about. In fact, let's look at the disparity or imbalance between the post that was replied to and your answer (one I replied to).


We clearly reached an understanding in the end, so this isn't relevant. I wasn't looking to be right, I just said I disagreed with her, if I wanted to be right, I would have told her I was right or that she was wrong. But the situation we were discussing had nothing to do with rightness or wrongness - I clearly show understanding of that when I said to you and to her that what I do works for me, and what you do, works for you. I also said I disagreed with the notion of ignoring people - something you agree with apparently or something? I don't know what your point is anymore.

I didn't give her advice, I gave her questions. You are the only one giving advice, personally I don't care how you deal with people.

Your screenshot of my post disproves nothing, because everything in that post that _sounds _like advice is actually copying what she already said: she said earlier that the most powerful you can do is ignore a person, I said literally word for word: "*sometimes,* the most powerful thing you can do is ignore a person" - if you feel that's giving advice, perhaps you should look at the context of the conversation more.

My rhetorical questions helped me explain my point more - if you take that as giving advice so be it. That wasn't my intention.



> The post that you replied to, in the four sentences that she wrote, did she ask for your advice? Did she even ask a question? I clearly see the conclusion you think your rhetorical questions should lead to, but I disagreed with you, and I tried to explain my reasoning (that you took as a lecture). Though I admit my response was a bit more escalatory, *the disparity or imbalance in my response to your post was a lot more even when compared to the disparity or imbalance of the previous response*.


Nope she didn't ask for advice, and I didn't give it, I asked questions. I used rhetorical questions to help elaborate my point - that is a legitimate literary device, not a way of giving advice.

Nope there are no "conclusions", I asked for her opinion because I wanted it. I am perfectly comfortable with the notion of agreeing to disagree. You absolutely gave a lecture and unsolicited advice - you asked me to learn the art of passive aggressive behaviour - behaviour I truly detest, so no I won't be taking you advice.

I agree to disagree to the bolded, because you know, I can do that.




> Though you didn't ask for advice, you asked questions, and I tried to answer them. Questions: people try to answer them, especially in an open, public forum. If this was meant to be a private conversation, then that's what posting to their profile's wall or private messages are for.


I've not commented on where you answered my questions because to be perfectly honest, I wasn't interested in your answers and some of your responses I find truly deplorable.

Thanks for the second lecture, that again, I didn't ask for.



> So it's ok for you to give unsolicited advice to someone who didn't ask, who clearly showed a tone of apathy, which could have been surmised if you read her responses, the tone behind her responses, or saw the disparity or imbalance between her replies and your responses, but it's not ok for me to answer some questions you actually asked in a thread open to the public? Gotcha.
> 
> *Ladies and gentlemen: this is why trying to "even the score" doesn't work.*


Still not sure how giving my own personal opinion and sharing that I disagree is giving advice - we can agree to disagree cos it's clearly a matter of perspective. If you think saying, "life is not that simple" is giving advice, then I'm just going to lol.

*Ladies and gentlemen: I can write in big red letters obnoxiously too.*


----------



## Quang (Sep 4, 2014)

@cir @DAPHNE LXIV

Ladies ladies, calm down... No need to fight over me :kitteh:


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Quang said:


> @_cir_ @_DAPHNE LXIV_
> 
> Ladies ladies, calm down... No need to fight over me :kitteh:


Can't help it Quang. You just do it for me.
But I'm calm, too calm in fact. I wish @cir's post would have annoyed me some moreto be honest, then I would have been super productive for the rest of the day, shame.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

If these last answers aren't a good indication, I don't know what is :laughing:

8's unite


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Sygma said:


> If these last answers aren't a good indication, I don't know what is


Fwiw, I didn't see either party being vindictive, just having a dispute.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Kipposhi said:


> Fwiw, I didn't see either party being vindictive, just having a dispute.


I don't have time to argue about semantics with an ENTP


----------



## Brains (Jul 22, 2015)

I see a bunch of useless squabbling.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

It's funny that eights think 1v1 is "fair". If there's a conflict, it's in the eight's own self interest to keep things 1v1 because the eight's defensive mechanisms and vice are all about escalation. The odds are on their side. And isolating people is how abusive people assert control over others. Almost as if that's some kind of type eight fear or something. When they're especially fixated, they rarely remember that there is a much bigger world out there, the world isn't about them, and the world isn't fair.

So when the eight manages to isolate somebody and continually assert control over their victim by means of escalation, it's unfair if people respond in kind, by escalating in terms of numbers? But if an eight witnesses injustice being inflicted in a 1v1 situation, they won't hesitate to step in and turn it into 2v1 in order to "even the odds", rather than trying to be the third party to stop the conflict.

They generally hate how people can gang up on them. If people can band up against a single eight, then you will trigger a chain of fear that goes from type eight's fear of humiliation to type five's fear of being overwhelmed. The consequences of continual escalation is total annihilation of the eight and everyone and everything they care about, people who may have nothing to do with the conflict.

It's karmic justice for the type who has a hard time accepting the need to de-escalate, letting go of petty slights of misunderstanding, and moving on with their lives. It just lives on as a chip on their shoulder, which continues to motivate pointless vengeful behavior. Seriously, the only victims here are some bruised egos and compromised inner peace. It's not a life or death situation. Let it go and get over it!

[HR][/HR]*There is a "Public"*​


DAPHNE LXIV said:


> You used a "you" there is no way for me to distinguish the personal you or third person objective you, I can't read your mind.





> Perhaps, you should make your audience clearer next time, *then I don't need to think about anything* because you would have made yourself clearer.





> Thanks for the second lecture, that again, I didn't ask for.


 People who are too apathetic to take things too personally tend to default to third person. If they care enough, they'll switch to first person. It's probably clear to people with contextual awareness, which clearly you aren't one of. *It's a public thread. It's always to the public.* You're a member of the public. 

If someone else wants to respond in depth to anything you wrote on the internet, how about trying to acknowledge that this is a public thread, where people are free to add on to other people's posts, and not trying to be overly defensive about it? You can interpret it as a "lecture", and that's your right, there's nothing I can do about that, but some people don't think it's a "lecture" as much as trying to informatively respond point by point.

If you don't want to be a part of the audience, then that's your choice. You can remove yourself from the audience. *That's not up for me to decide.* Your education and life is not my responsibility. Think for yourself and make your own decisions.

*I Don't Care.*​


> I didn't feel like you were unjustly attacking me, if I did, I would have said that - in fact I literally said: *i know you meant well so please don't take this the wrong way *- this is now the second time you have assumed intentions in my actions that don't exist. While I clearly was offering you the olive branch you refused to take. Irony much?


 Offering a range of choices isn't "assuming intentions". Quite frankly, I don't care enough about which options you pick, so I'm going to try to illustrate all of the different combinations of paths you can take. I'm not going to rule out the possibility that you suddenly find offense at something after the fact. I don't care.



> you shouldn't have been too surprised that was coming. Moreover, it took a few days for me to respond to you. So clearly my initial emotional response had passed, I simply responded because I wanted you to know. There was no emotion in my post, it's you that was reading it into it.


 Or, I could have assumed that you have better things to do than to check PerC every day. Or I could have assumed that you let it go, instead of pointlessly trying to save your face. Or, I don't really care enough about you personally to think this much or anything about you. Really, my head is too far up my ass to really think much about this.

But thank you for letting me know that it took you days to respond to my post. As if you're letting yourself be controlled by a total stranger over the internet. I don't want this responsibility. Please take control of your life back and go away.

*The Eight Core*​


DAPHNE LXIV said:


> Can't help it Quang. You just do it for me.
> But I'm calm, too calm in fact. I wish @_cir_'s post would have annoyed me some moreto be honest, then I would have been super productive for the rest of the day, shame.


 Wow, a desire to escalate. Almost as if this mindset is a part of the problem with core eights. Well, I wasn't trying to _excessively_ annoy, so I'm going to take that as a "good job".



> I've already said in this thread that I don't ignore much,


 Perhaps it's worth trying. Because otherwise, it's being petty and vindictive and viola! Escalation!



> I've not commented on where you answered my questions because *to be perfectly honest, I wasn't interested in your answers* and some of your responses I find truly deplorable.


 So somehow, you're able to ignore it after all. Keep it up! And what's the point of this response? This incredibly long reply that I'm replying to. *So you decided to not add to the discussion about vindictive behavior, you'd rather just display it as a live example.* Just to waste everyone's time and energy on nothing substantial. Just repeatedly defending yourself. Over. and over. again.



> A test of our sincerity in the practice of nonviolence is this: are we willing to learn something from the adversary? If a new truth is made known to us by him or through him, will we accept it? Are we willing to admit that he is not totally inhumane, wrong, unreasonable, cruel, etc.? This is important . . . *Our readiness to see some good in him and to agree with some of his ideas . . . actually gives us power: the power of sincerity and of truth. On the other hand, if we are obviously unwilling to accept any truth that we have not first discovered and declared ourselves, we show by that very fact that we are interested not in the truth so much as in “being right” *. . . Nonviolence has great power, provided that it really witnesses to truth and not just to self-righteousness.
> 
> *The dread of being open to the ideas of others generally comes from our hidden insecurity about our own convictions* . . . On the other hand, if we are mature and objective in our open-mindedness, we may find that in viewing things from a basically different perspective – that of our adversary – we discover our own truth in a new light and are able to understand our own ideal more realistically.


The Spiritual Enneagram: Type Eight - Sacred Resistance



> Cir said:
> 
> 
> > Of course not. You disagreed with her, and instead of looking for understanding, you were looking to be right. I don't recall the other poster asking for advice, but it didn't stop you from trying to give her advice or lecture her on things to think about. In fact, let's look at the disparity or imbalance between the post that was replied to and your answer (one I replied to).
> ...


 Of course not. When pointing out how eights are fixated to the Holy Truth, it's never relevant to eights themselves.



> I wasn't looking to be right, I just said I disagreed with her, *if I wanted to be right, I would have told her I was right or that she was wrong. *


 Eight's defensive mechanism is denial. Denial, denial, denial. To this person with a fixation to Holy Truth, that's clearly a lie.



> But the situation we were discussing had nothing to do with rightness or wrongness - I clearly show understanding of that when I said to you and to her that what I do works for me, and what you do, works for you. I also said I disagreed with the notion of ignoring people - something you agree with apparently or something? I don't know what your point is anymore.


 It's hypocritical to go "this works for me, and whatever you do works for you, let's keep it at that" while ignoring that exact same sentiment from the person you were replying to and then proceeded to lecture her.

I saw where she's coming from. Obviously I agree with ignoring people. Some people have better things to do than to look for petty reasons to be angry.



> Your screenshot of my post disproves nothing


 "Disproves nothing" => "Proves something"? The point is about the imbalance or disparity, the two or three words I repeated over and over again.

*What's the Point?*​


> I didn't give her advice, I gave her questions. You are the only one giving advice, personally I don't care how you deal with people.


 You gave her things which were unasked and unsolicited. Which is the exact same complaint you've been making about me for the last two posts I've replied to. I was just pointing out your hypocrisy, which contributes to why trying to administer something "equal" to the other side never works in restoring balance or "justice" to the world. Because the people who are administering justice are always exempt from their own rules, or something. And this is why eights and ones obsession over justice tends to escalate the amount of injustice in the world, contributing to making the world a shittier place to live in.
You gave her "things to think about". Apparently, in your world, "things to think about" _isn't_ advice.  I gave you "things to think about", because I saw where she was coming from. It's even. And if not, I'm writing off the losses.



> Nope she didn't ask for advice, and I didn't give it, I asked questions. I used rhetorical questions to help elaborate my point - that is a legitimate literary device, not a way of giving advice.
> 
> Nope there are no "conclusions",


 Denial, denial, denial. Then what's the point of your rhetorical questions?



> Still not sure how giving my own personal opinion and sharing that I disagree is giving advice - we can agree to disagree cos it's clearly a matter of perspective. If you think saying, *"life is not that simple" is giving advice*, then I'm just going to lol.


 Then laugh.



> *Ladies and gentlemen: I can write in big red letters obnoxiously too.*


 And yet, you're not communicating a bigger point. All you did here was defensively react to the things I said, repeating yourself over and over again. What a pointless reply and a waste of my time. Someone else remarked on the "useless squabbling". Thank you, @Brains I agree.
*
Here's an olive branch: I'm going to stop continuing this conversation with you. Feel free to continue to shit talk me, and either I'm going to ignore you or I'm going to report your post.*


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

cir said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


k.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

cir said:


> It's funny that eights think 1v1 is "fair". If there's a conflict, it's in the eight's own self interest to keep things 1v1 because the eight's defensive mechanisms and vice are all about escalation. The odds are on their side. And isolating people is how abusive people assert control over others. Almost as if that's some kind of type eight fear or something. When they're especially fixated, they rarely remember that there is a much bigger world out there, the world isn't about them, and the world isn't fair.
> 
> So when the eight manages to isolate somebody and continually assert control over their victim by means of escalation, it's unfair if people respond in kind, by escalating in terms of numbers? But if an eight witnesses injustice being inflicted in a 1v1 situation, they won't hesitate to step in and turn it into 2v1 in order to "even the odds", rather than trying to be the third party to stop the conflict.


Well 8's aren't 9's. There's no need for a third party in order to calm down if people just want to get medieval or something.

Besides, what's the point of you saying there's a public around ? your posts weren't liked enough compared to Daphne's so you felt disapproved in some ways ? because, I don't know if you noticed but both of you are saying that you simply have opinions and that's it ?

why would anyone need more people to acknowledge theirs ? if anything you're trying to get people affirming your position, then totally show it with the last part bolded in red.

World is offending ya know ? cleverly managing the situation is to be like bill.











And I'm not saying this to have some chimpanze's asses saying that I'm right or wrong. /facepalm

I heard my keyboard cringe while I was answering tbh


----------



## SecretSquirrel (Oct 31, 2014)

Although I love them dearly, 2's would be my pick. I've seen how a very close 2 in my life has gone about _getting back_ at others. I don't know how she does it either, because she won't do anything directly either; sometimes I feel she is a witch. I don't see any other type being like this, although we are all capable of being very hurtful/violent etc. For instance, I am a 4 and the way I would get back at someone would be by hurting myself although I only hurt myself when I do this and not anyone else because no one cares!)


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Sygma said:


> Well 8's aren't 9's. There's no need for a third party in order to calm down if people just want to get medieval or something.
> 
> Besides, what's the point of you saying there's a public around ? your posts weren't liked enough compared to Daphne's so you felt disapproved in some ways ? because, I don't know if you noticed but both of you are saying that you simply have opinions and that's it ?
> 
> ...


I just want to point out that I thanked your post for the image. Not the words.

I may have had respect for both people despite their opposing opinions, until one had to go and say something like " I wish I was irritated more so I could have gotten _really_ obnoxious"

That isn't tough or bad-ass, it's annoying and immature. Like a chihuahua yipping in a bigger dogs face.

Just makes me want to bat her on the nose and say "Shoo."


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Sygma said:


> Well 8's aren't 9's.



All of the other enneatypes are variations of type nine.
One's enneatype is not an excuse for their maladaptive behaviors.
All of the anger types are in the same center.
Eights and ones tend to do things in ways that prolong conflict. Perhaps there's something to learn from nines, which is finding ways to end the cycles of revenge.
*An eye for an eye and the world will go blind.*



> There's no need for a third party in order to calm down if people just want to get medieval or something.


 There is a need for a third party, and that's why societies have police and court systems. Otherwise, people are taking justice into their own hands. People are very biased in their own favor, and this imbalance of applied force will only escalate conflict. In a domination contest, he who shoots and hits the target first wins. In a country where guns are easily accessible, it's completely possible that one day, a minor argument could result in people getting killed.

Attempts for peace might actually save lives, if not your own, then perhaps someone you care about.



> Besides, what's the point of you saying there's a public around ?


 What do you think integration to point two means? Acknowledgement that there is a bigger world out there. This is a public forum, it's perfectly normal for people to want to add onto posts of other people. To become defensive about "this doesn't involve you" in a _public_ thread should be kind of suspicious. If people are unwilling to have their posts be commented and taken apart by the world at large, then they should keep those things private or to themselves.

The problem with the power-seeking triad is this seed of pride, the core assumption that there is no "higher power" to answer to. Well shit, if eights aren't looking for understanding with other people, if they're unable to accept other people's differing viewpoints, then they're just looking to fight. The "public" represents the things eights fear. The "public" vastly outnumber the eight, and the "public" can control the eight, and the "public" can form governments based on motives of vengeance who would kill offending people and everyone related or associated with them.



> your posts weren't liked enough compared to Daphne's so you felt disapproved in some ways ?


 No, just because people didn't like my post doesn't mean they didn't read it. My point is to communicate, not a popularity contest. People like things that they agree with. Things that need to be said is often not popular. People are forced to think or think differently, perhaps consider whether they are a part of the problem at large. People don't like to be blamed; it ruins their inner peace by making them feel guilty or ashamed. People don't live in isolated worlds where their behavior is totally isolated to themselves, without a spillover effect to their friends or family or to the society at large. The superego says "so be it, it still needs to be said".



> because, I don't know if you noticed but both of you are saying that you simply have opinions and that's it ?


 I don't think you understand the problems with continually escalating conflicts. Eights and ones are in the anger triad, they're the most black/white thinkers of the enneagram, and they're motivated by "justice", but most of the time, the "justice" is a veil for problems relating to aggression. It's difficult for them to account other people's point of views, and if you leave it up to them, lots of people, especially people who are too different from them, will be neglected and harmed.



> why would anyone need more people to acknowledge theirs ? if anything you're trying to get people affirming your position, then totally show it with the last part bolded in red.


 It's called "driving the point home" that peace is ultimately the goal. We're in the anger triad, we're closer related to nines than many other types.



> World is offending ya know ?


 The world is full of conflicts. Eights tend to contribute to the escalation of conflicts. When conflicts escalate, actual innocent people will get harmed. This problem is completely preventable. 



> cleverly managing the situation is to be like bill.


 I managed just fine. I ended my involvement with the clearly escalating conversation. This is only my fourth post on this thread. I don't know what more you want.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

I don't even understand why you took such a tangent.



> All of the other enneatypes are variations of type nine.


Yeah and ? key word is variation. 

Besides it's not up to somebody else to fix people's problems if they can't even listen to others without having their ego coming in the way to begin with. World is fucked up because we keep softening it up, not the other way around.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

@cir

There appears to be a discrepancy between your lecture on deescalation and actual display of behavior, when dealing with a boundary conflict. 

Also, in my understanding Daphne only drew a line, explicitely not accusing you of malicious intent, and more for the purpose of future situations. To justify your actions in service of the common cause and public interest strikes a bit odd to me, coming from an 8 to an 8. You not only tried to justify something you were not accused of (which is rather defensive and apologetic), but by that you also implied you have the right to violate that personal boundary again in the future. And as if that wasn't enough convincing to you, you tried to accuse her of having done the same. However, your screenshot may have the appearance of evidence, I don't read anything there as an advice to others, or how others should behave, just a personal opinion. Whereas your post to me breathes an ambition to take in a position of authority, again to serve the common cause, e.g. explaining how we can all make this world a better place. I wouldn't have a problem with that ambition, just that the image you paint doesn't correspond well with your actions. Which mind you, is just my personal observation and impression.


----------



## Fumetsu (Oct 7, 2015)

Sygma said:


> I don't even understand why you took such a tangent.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There is an emense chasm between " soft " and responding to every differing opinion with a " Hulk angry, Hulk smash!" -esq aggression.


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

Fumetsu said:


> There is an emense chasm between " soft " and responding to every differing opinion with a " Hulk angry, Hulk smash!" -esq aggression.


True. But that also come down with perception / interpretation I guess, and writting doesn't really help "blunt people" on that end. Because if you'd have them right in front of you in real life, you'd know that they'd deliver the exact same speech with the most relaxed tone ever.

I grew up with a lot of ESTP - ESFP, and most of my best friends are of these branches. When they're blunt with writting they don't mean any harm. It's really "whatever rock your boat buddy".


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Sygma said:


> I don't even understand why you took such a tangent.
> 
> Yeah and ? key word is variation.


 Nines: quadrilateral. Eights: rectangle. Your response was basically "Rectangles aren't quadrilaterals". But since you're so focused on this tiny detail, you probably missed the bigger picture, which is all of the subsequent points.



> Besides it's not up to somebody else to fix people's problems if they can't even listen to others without having their ego coming in the way to begin with.


 I'm not fixing other people's problems. This is a *public* discussion. If people (plural) choose to accept that my arguments can be valid, then that's good enough. I'm saying that there are consequences, and if in a conflict, the other person retaliates with lethal force, problems will be fixed. Just probably not in the way the dead wanted.



> World is fucked up because we keep softening it up, not the other way around.


 I live in the USA. People find it acceptable to own multiple guns for "self defense". We have the most mass shooters out of any other country in the world. The US society is fucked up, and it's not because "we keep softening it up". An average eight's mindset of "shoot first, ask later" is part of the problem. God forbid, some of us wants to live in a safe society where we're allowed to be soft.



mimesis said:


> @_cir_
> 
> There appears to be a discrepancy between your lecture on deescalation and actual display of behavior, when dealing with a boundary conflict.


 Sure, and within three posts, the argument is ended. Argument ending is a type of "de-escalation".



> Also, in my understanding Daphne only drew a line, explicitely not accusing you of malicious intent, and more for the purpose of future situations. To justify your actions in service of the common cause and public interest strikes a bit odd to me, coming from an 8 to an 8. You not only tried to justify something you were not accused of (which is rather defensive and apologetic), but by that you also implied you have the right to violate that personal boundary again in the future. And as if that wasn't enough convincing to you, you tried to accuse her of having done the same.


 Everyone's boundaries differ. Not everyone will always be aware of where other people's boundaries are. *Boundaries are often negotiated, not just unilaterally decided by one party.* Boundaries need to be flexible. Boundaries will be hit and tested. That's a fact of life. The challenge is to not escalate when that happens. Hence why vengeance, or "tit for tat" or trying to inflict harm "in the same way one was hurt" doesn't work. What is a non-issue for one person is a huge problem for someone else. One person trying to be informative is perceived as patronizing to another. And this is why conflicts will always exist. Conflicts are like fires; it's easy for them to start, spread, and burn everything in its path. The challenge is to put out whatever fires we can so that the entire world doesn't burn. My solution is to give people free passes; ignore them. Whatever, I'll live.

The boundary I care most about is "life vs death". Seriously, gun-loving nuts in this country, some of them managed to kill _themselves_ in their wreckless behavior. It's one thing if it's words over the internet. It's another when that mindset carries with them over to the real world, with firearms. Thank fucking god we're still in the domain of "words over the internet". The only victims here are bruised egos and disrupted inner peace. No one died and a pointless argument is over and some semblance of peace has returned? I find this acceptable.



> However, your screenshot may have the appearance of evidence, I don't read anything there as an advice to others, or how others should behave, just a personal opinion.


 It's the size of the imbalance. Four sentences vs a lecture. "Things to think about" is almost the definition of "advice". Daphne wasn't asking for a lecture or advice. Well, neither did Fumetsu.



> Whereas your post to me breathes an ambition to take in a position of authority, again to serve the common cause, e.g. explaining how we can all make this world a better place.


 If you think I have authority, it's because you gave it to me. That's a lot of responsibility I didn't sign up for. Now I feel controlled. I only exercise authoritative control over the posts I write. If people found that convincing, then that's good. If not, then oh well.



> I wouldn't have a problem with that ambition, just that the image you paint doesn't correspond well with your actions. Which mind you, is just my personal observation and impression.


 Thanks for letting me know.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Fumetsu said:


> I may have had respect for both people despite their opposing opinions, until one had to go and say something like " I wish I was irritated more so I could have gotten _really_ obnoxious"


No. That was not my intent.

I really would like people to stop deciding for me what I mean and what I don't mean. I can speak perfect English, it's my first language - if that's what I meant, I would have said it. Instead you've decided you know what I mean. I wish people like you would shoo. It's so juvenile to add your two cents when you -- like your opinion matters all that much because you've clearly got an accurate read on a situation you don't have an accurate read on -- didn't even bother to consider you don't know for sure another person's intentions.

If her post really annoyed me, I would have showed it and probably continued talking to her in exactly the same way I did - why? Because I don't need to get obnoxious to show she was clearly taking her posts to unusual extremes.

Hand me that paper when you're done, k?


----------



## Sygma (Dec 19, 2014)

> Nines: quadrilateral. Eights: rectangle. Your response was basically "Rectangles aren't quadrilaterals". But since you're so focused on this tiny detail, you probably missed the bigger picture, which is all of the subsequent points.












It's not because your wording and way of explaining is flawed that my understanding is limited. So, no, we're not all 9. Also, very doubtful you're ENTJ


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

cir said:


> Sure, and within three posts, the argument is ended. Argument ending is a type of "de-escalation".


I guess this means that you are under the impression that *you* had ended the debate because Daphne gave her "seal of approval", apparently taking it at face value. Your tactic often seems to be to flood the debate with information (not even mentioning your font use). Which is another way of escalating a debate. In my opinion you don't know how to deescalate, not because escalation gives you a rush (Lust), but because inflexibility is characteristic for counter-phobic reaction formation, which cannot adapt to changing situations. 


* *







Reaction Formation said:


> In a diagnostic setting, the existence of a reaction-formation rather than a 'simple' emotion would be suspected where exaggeration, compulsiveness and inflexibility were observed. For example,
> 
> "[r]eactive love protests too much; it is overdone, extravagant, showy, and affected. It is counterfeit, and [...] is usually easily detected. Another feature of a reaction formation is its compulsiveness. A person who is defending himself against anxiety cannot deviate from expressing the opposite of what he really feels. His love, for instance, is not flexible. It cannot adapt itself to changing circumstances as genuine emotions do; rather *it must be constantly on display as if any failure to exhibit it would cause the contrary feeling to come to the surface.*





Naranjo said:


> Another observation of Schneider is that it is typical of all fanatical trouble makers to attribute a “sort of public importance” to their concerns, and that “there is a tendency for the fanatic ideas to issue in schemes and programmes. If the over-valued idea relates to a personal difference or a civil dispute, every effort is concentrated on laying low the offender utterly...” (...)
> To the extent that competitive usurpation is involved, there is guilt, fear of retaliation, and a perpetuation of paranoid insecurity. Belonging in this category are, aside from the denouncing of authority and the competitive wish to stand in the place of authority, “argumentativeness,", "criticality", “skepticism,” and “cynicism.” Along with these I have listed the descriptors “they think they know the right way,” “pressuring others to conform,” “bombastic,” “bluffing,” “strong,” “courageous,” and “grandiose.” The trait of scapegoating appears to be related to this “strong” expression of type VI rather than the warm and weak style. We are in the presence of the counter-phobic manifestation of type VI—a strategy comparable to the barking of a dog.









cir said:


> Everyone's boundaries differ. Not everyone will always be aware of where other people's boundaries are. Boundaries are often negotiated, not just unilaterally decided by one party. Boundaries need to be flexible. Boundaries will be hit and tested. That's a fact of life. The challenge is to not escalate when that happens. Hence why vengeance, or "tit for tat" or trying to inflict harm "in the same way one was hurt" doesn't work. What is a non-issue for one person is a huge problem for someone else. One person trying to be informative is perceived as patronizing to another. And this is why conflicts will always exist. Conflicts are like fires; it's easy for them to start, spread, and burn everything in its path. The challenge is to put out whatever fires we can so that the entire world doesn't burn. My solution is to give people free passes; ignore them. Whatever, I'll live.


Yet, you decided to engage in combat, justifying your actions and apparently feeling empowered by the higher common cause you are serving and the rules of engagement set by the forum. You could have let go, let it pass, which for instance I have done on several occasions where you asked me to stop doing whatever I was doing you didn't appreciate. I don't see that as conceding defeat, or a pride issue, and I'm not concerned much how other's see it, including you. But I think you also confuse type 8 level 1 and integration to 2 "Become self-restrained and magnanimous, merciful and forbearing, mastering self through their *self-surrender* to a higher authority" -
with your attempt to submit another to the community/group/herd interest, and apparently feeling empowered by it or at least using it to justify your actions and right to violate anothers boundary. 
See more at: https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-8/#sthash.gQehj3qF.dpuf 

The persecution you mentioned (guilt by association), is guilt by *affiliation*. It's a *group* focus not individual, with in-group loyalty (rights and duties) and out-group aggression and tit-for-tat vengeance. If you like I'll give you another historic example, e.g. how slavery for a long time has been justified by law, and institutional authorities like churches, political parties and self-proclaimed liberalists, based on the argument that slaves are not people but private property, and should fall accordingly under that jurisdiction. I mean, I could give a history lecture on that alone. But by your argument, it would be justified that African American individuals were only allowed to sit in the back of the bus, or you may feel empowered to tell someone to sit there and swallow their vicious pride or mocked their bruised ego. Hypothetically speaking, that is. What bother's me more however is your one-eyed focus, trying to explain emotions through the enneagram. Here's one example of anger without any 'willfull object', confusing square pegs for round holes. Perhaps more an issue of an 'unwillingful object' due to identification with intellectual competence, nothing to do with personal boundaries. 










Another interesting research, and note 'anti-social behavior':



Vindictive babes said:


> According to a study led by the University of British Columbia, babies as young as eight months old want a bad guy to get what’s coming to him.
> 
> Published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the study suggests that the babies supported negative behaviour if they felt it was deserved – and weren’t keen on those who didn’t punish bad-behaving individuals.
> 
> ...


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

cir said:


> I don't think you understand the problems with continually escalating conflicts. Eights and ones are in the anger triad, *they're the most black/white thinkers of the enneagram*, and they're motivated by "justice", but most of the time, the "justice" is a veil for problems relating to aggression. It's difficult for them to account other people's point of views, and if you leave it up to them, lots of people, especially people who are too different from them, will be neglected and harmed.


This is really cringe. You escalated the discussion, not me. [Say hi to Treebob for me when you report my posts for being too real, k?]

Also, no, my thinking is not black-and-white, as exhibited by the fact that I told Fumetsu, in my initial engagement with her that -> "This situation is not either or." It's in your screenshot. This is the perfect example of an 8 showing understanding that belies black-and-white thinking.

Furthermore, it's quite insulting to suggest that. It's such a gross over-generalisation - it borders on typism.

Also my motivation for justice is motivated by the fact I know the world is not fair, and the vulnerable need protecting (meta-analysis: this is an example of me taking other people's views into consideration by the way).

Finally, how can you say that an 8 is motivated by justice (aka to protect/defend those that are vulnerable/weak), and then in the NEXT sentence say that "people who are too different from them, will be neglected and harmed" - those two statements are in contradiction.

I do not think you are an 8 based on this, I would implore you to reconsider your typing. Everything in our discussion, least of all your obsessive need to appeal to a wider audience (and your lack of awareness when you project this need on to me: you said I was trying to gang up on you ???? ), suggests counter-phobic 6.

(Now, because I _am _self-aware, I can admit that the last bit was unsolicited, but it was in hopes that it would lead to your own self-development, I would not be offended if you decide to ignore it.)

edit: And also, because you clearly didn't get it. My "seal of approval" is pure, biting sarcasm. I didn't even read your entire post. I just saw the unnecessary length, laughed and posted "k" because, usually, a one-letter response to an essay says I'm not really bothered/interested.


----------



## cir (Oct 4, 2013)

Sygma said:


> It's not because your wording and way of explaining is flawed that my understanding is limited. So, no, we're not all 9.





Maitri said:


> Just as Point Nine is considered to be the primary point on the enneagram out of which all of the others are refracted, so too is this passion the most central. From a spiritual perspective, the fact of our asleepness and our inertia in remaining so is the principal and fundamental issue. It is at the heart of our discontent and of much of human suffering. The different schools and methods of awakening are all geared toward contending with this universal reality.





> Also, very doubtful you're ENTJ


 And unsolicited typing is against forum rules.
[HR][/HR]


mimesis said:


> I guess this means that you are under the impression that *you* had ended the debate because Daphne gave her "seal of approval", apparently taking it at face value.


 I proposed something. She accepted it. Done deal. People are not be mind readers, so the face value is the middle ground.



> Your tactic often seems to be to flood the debate with information (not even mentioning your font use).


 The only faults with being too informative, other than the possible perception that it's patronizing, is that it could also be boring. And I like my font use, thank you. It's an expression of my creativity and a way to organize my thoughts. It's impossible to please everyone.



> Which is another way of escalating a debate. In my opinion you don't know how to deescalate, not because escalation gives you a rush (Lust), but because inflexibility is characteristic for counter-phobic reaction formation, which cannot adapt to changing situations.


 You seem to be focused on spatial escalation; flooded with information and being colorful with my language. I don't want to be completely dismissive, but I'm trying to be informative for those rare people in the audience who cares. I value my time, and time wasted belaboring a point is another spectrum of escalation. I don't see value in me personally beating a dead horse and contributing to dragging a thread for another bajillion pages.

Adaptability is subjective. I prioritize the goal or objective, and my adaptability is geared towards that. Sure, I'm rough around the edges in my presentation, but no one's perfect.



> Yet, you decided to engage in combat, justifying your actions and apparently feeling empowered by the higher common cause you are serving and the rules of engagement set by the forum.


 Yeah, because there's a balance between nine's extreme, which is _never_ engaging in conflicts and eight's extreme, which is reflexively engaging in conflict. Conflicts _do_ have to be settled for peace. Simply ignoring problems does not mean the conflicts are resolved. Because the world is filled with conflicts, one could decide which conflicts are worth engaging in and which are worth ignoring. Because values are not universal and people are heavily biased in their own favor, when more than one party is involved, trying to settle conflicts in any way that isn't unilateral appeasement to the parties's spoken or unspoken demands will inevitably leave people dissatisfied and unhappy.

Sometimes, people have to negotiate their demands, which is type of conflict, for the sake of peace or moving on with their lives. And that's why we have courts. Lawsuits: where the only winners are lawyers.



> You could have let go, let it pass,


 The argument has ended. I straight up said I'm stopping my conversation with her. I don't know why that doesn't qualify as "letting go" or "letting it pass". You may disagree with the style or how it was done, but the objective was accomplished.



> which for instance I have done on several occasions where you asked me to stop doing whatever I was doing you didn't appreciate. I don't see that as conceding defeat, or a pride issue,


 And I appreciate that. I said I'm stopping my involvement with a conversation. Not sure why that's different.



> and I'm not concerned much how other's see it, including you.


 There's really nothing wrong with being concerned with how others see things. If I want to be understood, I _should_ be concerned with how others see it.



> But I think you also confuse type 8 level 1 and integration to 2 "Become self-restrained and magnanimous, merciful and forbearing, mastering self through their *self-surrender* to a higher authority" -
> with your attempt to submit another to the community/group/herd interest,


 I don't personally subscribe to R&H's ways of teaching. I see where they're coming from, but it's too restrictive for me. I don't even think that "eights integrate to 2" without "eights disintegrate from 2". 

There's the traditional folk wisdom of "an eye for an eye will make the world go blind" and I live in a country where guns are accessible. It doesn't need to involve the enneagram, that's just the most logical conclusion of prolonged escalatory behavior.



> and apparently feeling empowered by it or at least using it to justify your actions and right to violate anothers boundary.
> See more at: https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-8/#sthash.gQehj3qF.dpuf


 Again, to think that individuals or singular groups have a unilateral right to set boundaries, especially boundaries involving other people or people external to the group, is part of the problem. Because then, people will set boundaries that appear to be "It's ok if I do this, but it's not ok if you do this", "You will need to do these things for me or I will kill you", or "This neighborhood is for whites only". When only one party sets the boundary, it will be inherently very favorable to the party who sets those boundaries, and it will be inherently very unfavorable to everyone else.

Boundaries are not eternal static entities. Boundaries are set up to contain a problem relevant at a time. And then, some boundaries outlive their usefulness and _do_ need to be dissolved for societal progress. People become too attached to boundaries. When a boundary needs to be dissolved, people feel threatened because they are too attached to those boundaries. Oh no, people must be forced to accept non-whites into their neighborhood.



> The persecution you mentioned (guilt by association), is guilt by *affiliation*. It's a *group* focus not individual, with in-group loyalty (rights and duties) and out-group aggression and tit-for-tat vengeance.


 There's "you are in this group, so the entire group gets punished" and there's also "you are associated with a member of this group, you are also punished".



> If you like I'll give you another historic example, e.g. how slavery for a long time has been justified by law, and institutional authorities like churches, political parties and self-proclaimed liberalists, based on the argument that slaves are not people but private property, and should fall accordingly under that jurisdiction. I mean, I could give a history lecture on that alone. But by your argument, it would be justified that African American individuals were only allowed to sit in the back of the bus, or you may feel empowered to tell someone to sit there and swallow their vicious pride or mocked their bruised ego.


 Actually, no, I think the boundary "slaves are not people" need to be abolished, the people who are overly invested in that boundary needs to get over it, and the boundary of the US Constitution needs to be adjusted to include the fourteen amendment that guarantees their citizenship.



> Hypothetically speaking, that is. What bother's me more however is your one-eyed focus, trying to explain emotions through the enneagram.


 My first post in this thread included a link that wasn't enneagram focused that gave the definition of anger. Emotional Competency - Anger



> Here's one example of anger without any 'willfull object', confusing square pegs for round holes. Perhaps more an issue of an 'unwillingful object' due to identification with intellectual competence, nothing to do with personal boundaries.


 That's probably "frustration" or "annoyance", which I recently learned was a lighter mode of anger. So I take responsibility for my actions and make the hole bigger to accommodate any shape or I can carve or sand down the objects and make them fit into the hole. Easy peasy lemon squeezy.


----------



## drmiller100 (Dec 3, 2011)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> T\
> Also my motivation for justice is motivated by the fact I know the world is not fair, and the vulnerable need protecting (meta-analysis: this is an example of me taking other people's views into consideration by the way).


I'm in agreement, and would like to rephrase on that.

When I was young, I'd pick on people. 
Later, I realized There are asssholes in the world. There are people who are sweet, or innocent, or VULNERABLE to those assholes. I would encourage the assholes to not pick on the vulnerable.
In general I don't like myself when I pick on people. but when assholes pick on the vulnerable, I get to pick on the assholes. 

As time goes by, I realize I'm one of the assholes.

So what is left? 

To work on me, to let me be more vulnerable with the right people. 

In any drama there are 3 roles to be played. There is perpetrator, victim, and hero. i'm comfortable as Perp and Hero. I'm looking at victim.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

drmiller100 said:


> but when assholes pick on the vulnerable, I get to pick on the assholes.
> 
> As time goes by, I realize I'm one of the assholes.


I've struggled with this thought-process in the past too...

I like picking on assholes, it's a fun game to me. And the way I see it, the more I waste an asshole's time by engaging them, the less time they have to pick on someone more vulnerable.

Does that make me an asshole too?

Perhaps, because most of the time that asshole is someone who probably should be treated with empathy if I want to encourage any meaningful change in their behaviour. But I can't help myself - if I see someone taking advantage of another, I just get really angry.

Sometimes the asshole is a victim who needs teaching and encouraging - I'm just very unsympathetic to it though.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

DAPHNE LXIV said:


> I do not think you are an 8 based on this, I would implore you to reconsider your typing. Everything in our discussion, least of all your obsessive need to appeal to a wider audience (and your lack of awareness when you project this need on to me: you said I was trying to gang up on you ???? ), suggests counter-phobic 6.
> 
> (Now, because I _am _self-aware, I can admit that the last bit was unsolicited, but it was in hopes that it would lead to your own self-development, I would not be offended if you decide to ignore it.)


The fact that it's unsolicited is something @cir can choose to report or not, but can you clearly illustrate your basis for typing her a cp 6? Because I sure as hell do not want this to be a stereotypical "8s who project and care about people's opinions are cp 6s in disguise". That sort of thing really ruins the reputation of both types, you know.


----------



## DAPHNE XO (Jan 16, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> The fact that it's unsolicited is something @_cir_ can choose to report or not, but can you clearly illustrate your basis for typing her a cp 6? Because I sure as hell do not want this to be a stereotypical "8s who project and care about people's opinions are cp 6s in disguise". That sort of thing really ruins the reputation of both types, you know.


Nope, there's nothing to report. I didn't break any rules.

It's not a stereotypical anything. If you read my enagagement with cir, you can see sixish behavioural patterns in the way she is:

(*) fearful of agression so responds by escalating it in order to prove she is "tough" (?????) 
(*) accuses _me _of escalating the situation, because she's unable to see what she is doing for what it is, and admitting her actions would mean showing her anxiety (because sixes have an issue with their anxiety - "when conflicts arise, they can be highly confrontational and even belligerent. Nevertheless, beneath their bluster, they are just as fearful and anxious as phobic Sixes, but their actions are a reaction to the anxiety rather than a direct expression of it.") 
(*) every one of her posts is riddled with contradictions, "Sixes are full of contradictions because anxiety makes them ricochet from one psychological state to another." 
(*) Her defensive, rebellious attitude that came from literally nowhere, "They walk through life fearing that they will be “in trouble” and unjustly punished, and adopt a defensive, rebellious attitude as a protection from the cruel protective figure they project into many of their relationships"
(*) Her weird need to keep calling upon some form of authority, and her constant references to herself as not having enough authority to do X - this suggests an obsessive fearful relationship with her own super-ego. 6s are associated with the super-ego, 8s are ego-centric. - "Sixes are internally questioning their activities to see whether they will meet with the internalized standards of the protective figure—their superego"
(*) She keeps looking for reassurance in what she posts by appealing to the "audience" and whenever someone disagrees she just says you're not part of the audience then (lol?) - "Sixes are not really experiencing their own inner capacity and strength, and must constantly look outside themselves for reassurance, support, and evidence of their ability to successfully engage with life"
(*) She keeps telling us she's writing for an audience with questionable existence, whilst dismissing everything the *actual *audience who are engaging with her are saying - "the pattern of orienting themselves to life by obtaining the reassurance and approval of others (who, in one way or another, function as external sources of security and support) is one which is deeply ingrained in their nature." 
(*) She took me trying to affirm personal boundaries as some kind of personal affront - "Sixes who are more counterphobic ... are quicker to confront others and are more prone to suspiciousness than phobic Sixes. ... In this respect, counterphobic Sixes can resemble Eights. They try to repress their anxiety through action, and in the average Levels, can react strongly and *defensively if questioned*."
(new!) (*) She keeps presenting herself as some kind of "rebel" that doesn't care what people think, because she's here to express her individuality and nothing else -- but her continually appealing to some "audience" or authority belies that. Again, this is example of contradictory sixish behaviour.
(new!) (*) All the projection in her posts which is characteristic of 6s (as a defense mechanism) - here. 

For example, she accuses me of escalating the conversation (bad behaviour), but she's the one who threatened to report me twice. (What for? I have no idea.) 
Another example, she accuses me of denial and being defensive (bad behaviour) but I haven't been. 
And then, she attritubes the action of de-escalating the discussion to herself (good behaviour) but she didn't de-escalate it, anyone with two eyes can see it was me with my one-letter response.

Need I continue?


(edit: all underlined stuff taken from here)

edit2: my main reason for saying she's not an 8, whether or not she could be 6, is that she doesn't get an 8's thinking. Clearly. She thinks an 8 is motivated for justice because we want to hide aggressive tendencies. What? I highly doubt any genuine 8 could ever come up with such an odd conclusion about how they feel. Not especially because of the vast number of descriptions available online that she could read to use to understand an 8's motivation and thinking. 

My reasoning was simple: if you can't understand why an 8 acts they way they do, you're probably not one.


----------



## Shadow Tag (Jan 11, 2014)

I mean, as much fun as I've had reading this back n' forth and type analysis using don sources such as the Enneagram Institute...

To me being vindictive is a pretty unhealthy human trait and can be found in any type, but I'd expect to see it most often in sx 1s, 2s, and 8s. All for different reasons, though. But let's be real, we all think about it when we're wronged, sometimes very briefly, but it's still there. But it is a bit hard to imagine 9s and 5s being vindictive, anyone have experience with this?


----------

