# What types do you believe are overrated/underrated?



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

to start things off

overrated:
- 4s
- 5s
- Sx doms

underrated:
- cp6s
- 8w7s
- 1w9s
- Sp doms
- So doms


----------



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

Compliant types and relating types are underrated in the community. 2s are also underrated. So doms and sp/so are underrated, because sp/sx is overrated. 4s and 5s are overrated.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

2's, 1w9's are underated, 6w7's tend to be pitted against 6w5's, 7w6's tend to be pitted against 7w8's, 9w1's get pitted against 9w8's. And instincts, as @_Mr.Rbtoo_ touched on, where there is sp/so, it will be pitted against sp/sx, sp/so will be pitted against sx/so and so on, basically sx last is one to be avoided in general it seems.


----------



## Galaxies (Apr 9, 2013)

Having spent a few weeks in this community, I'd say:

Overrated:
4s, 5s, 7s, 8s, sx-doms

Underrated:
1s, 2s, 6s, so-doms

"Meh":
3s, 9s


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Why is everyone saying that 4s are overrated? Pretty much everyone with a basic understanding of the Enneagram will think that 4s are whiny, dramatic, sad people who walk around complaining about their issues to everyone and writing poems about cutting themselves. :mellow: I'd agree that it's over-typed though. Pretty much every Fi user will consider type 4 at some point, and will at the very least test as one.

To answer OP, I'd say superego types are most underrated. Id types are glorified, and withdrawn types are either badly stereotypes or forgotten. I also agree with @_mushr00m_ about 6w7 < 6w7, and 7w6 < 7w8.


----------



## HighClassSavage (Nov 29, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> Why is everyone saying that 4s are overrated? Pretty much everyone with a basic understanding of the Enneagram will think that 4s are whiny, dramatic, sad people who walk around complaining about their issues to everyone


Simple. The majority of this forum is INxx, who often type as 4 or 5. When the majority type as 4 or 5, naturally there is going to exist some bias, especially when a lot of people often make themselves "look better" on the internet.

Overrated (Forum):
-4's
-5's
-8w7

Underrated (Forum):
-1's
-2's
-6w5
-8w9

Overrated (U.S.A.):
-3's
-7's
-8's

Underrated (U.S.A.):
-4's
-5's
-9's


----------



## rajAs (Sep 14, 2012)

*In forum
*
Overrated:

Any combination with an 8 in it.

Underrated:

9, 2


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I'll elaborate 

overrated:
- *4s*: pretty much for all the reasons @kaleidoscope mentioned (cuz they're true most of the time :tongue: )
- *5s*: great, you're really intellectual and have lots of hoarded money/possessions....*who cares?* excluding sexual 5s, they come across as passionless, asexual and robotic.
- *8w9s*: much more boring than 8w7s, covertly controlling (I much prefer the more direct controlling tendencies of 8w7), prone to unpredictable explosions of anger. also, I hate to say it, but they remind me of neanderthals. :tongue:
- *Sx doms*: yes, they're dramatic, they're entertaining, they're attention grabbing, they're passionate....but they're also clingy, obsessive, prone to addiction, prone to REALLY stupid, impulsive decisions and more internally conflicted than the other variants. additionally, the more desperate ones can comes off creepy as hell and it is by far the most difficult instinct to satisfy (partially because it is the most dependent on someone else. you can't just walk away from a passion or intimate relationship and find another one as easily as you can a peer group or organization.)

underrated:
- *cp6s*: cp6s can be heroic, courageous and inspirational but (usually) sans the the sociopathic tendencies of 8s
- *8w7s*: sure, they're really aggressive, but they have a great balance of gut and head energy 
- *1w9s*: calm, rational, confident, principled, quietly passionate, responsible, disciplined....1w9 is pretty much what the ideal man looks like imo. 
- *Sp doms*: pragamatic, grounded, able to survive, don't make the dumb ass, impulsive decisions common in other types
- *So doms* really intelligent, know how to keep track of many important things (albeit just as many unimportant things...) and have a large network with whom they can make deals with and rise to positions of higher wealth (of course, I'm thinking about this from a very Id perspective. a Social 1 probably cares less about such things :tongue: )
- *3s*: they're productive and they kick ass without the blunt narcissism and egocentrism of 7s and 8w7s (they're still pretty full of themselves, but most know how to keep it to themselves)


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

kaleidoscope said:


> Why is everyone saying that 4s are overrated? Pretty much everyone with a basic understanding of the Enneagram will think that 4s are whiny, dramatic, sad people who walk around complaining about their issues to everyone and writing poems about cutting themselves. :mellow: I'd agree that it's over-typed though. Pretty much every Fi user will consider type 4 at some point, and will at the very least test as one.


Yeah, I agree also, given trends that occur in typology, 4 was a heavily overdone mistype back in the day(still overtyped for reasons of idolizing it and misinformation and for emo reasons...) but has been normalized due to that it was overly craved, now it's getting more of a bad rep compared to say, 8. Having said all this though, 5 has been more normalized recently aswell. The only way to get round this unfairness is to normalize them all which is what's been happening a lot on this forum, speaking about types in terms of regular people and all walks of life. And on 8's, it's hard to say if they are even worshipped the same as they once were in general. Perhaps it really is a cultural shift :/


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

CasuallyBelligerent said:


> Overrated (U.S.A.):
> -3's
> -7's
> -8's
> ...


imo, it's logical that society would value/not value said types. the former types are typically more productive and independent.

that said, this seems like more the interpretation of the older generations. Generations Y and Z are much more 9-ish and 4-ish (everyone wants to be the weed smoking bro or the special snowflake artist. just go to any college and that's like 50% of the people there :tongue

I would take 9 and 4 off your list of underrated and add cp6 to your list of overrated (for the US)


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

I would think that since they tend to get no small amount of flack for whatever reason, 4s would be underrated.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Ice Ghost said:


> I would think that since they tend to get no small amount of flack for whatever reason, 4s would be underrated.


I really agree with this. My sister is an enneagram 4, yet she really is stable and generous, and is one of the most successful people I know. While she does have her volatile moments at times, her awareness of her own emotions is something I haven't seen in anyone else I've met. In a sense because of it she is very mature and wise.


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

Galaxies said:


> Having spent a few weeks in this community, I'd say:
> "Meh":
> 9s





rajAs said:


> Underrated:
> 9,



i make up for that with my unconditional overrating of 9s.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

*Overrated


*-8
-8
-8
-8
-5


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> excluding sexual 5s, they come across as passionless, asexual and robotic.


lol, how many sx 5s have you met compared to non-sx 5s?


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

I think Sevens are by far the most overrated, lol. People lacking an in-depth understanding of the core motivations really seem to buy into the whole "Wooooo Party Party fun and games" thing as if it's really that simple. And a lot of the literature I've read seems to play up the type as well. No, they're also Narcissistic, often shallow and often emotional cowards (by my definition). Although I find plenty of things attractive about Sevens (I'm kind of going through a phase which I really hope ends soon), I think most of them are kind of headaches on an interpersonal level.

Of course I'm being possibly defensive since I know how you feel about Fours, OP. Hahaha. But I really don't understand this whole "Fours are overrated" thing. Maybe around these parts but... like, generally speaking, I think Fours are often depicted in a pretty poor light, so...

I also think Five is kind of overrated, just in the sense they're associated with being the intellectual ones which people think = highly intelligent. Which they often are but that's just not the point.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

Ice Ghost said:


> I would think that since they tend to get no small amount of flack for whatever reason, 4s would be underrated.


I kind of agree. Everyone talks about how Fours are overrated because they're just over-dramatic and whiny, emphasis on the OVER-DRAMATIC AND WHINY OVER-DRAMATIC AND WHINY EMO EMO EMO... and yeah, okay guys, I kinda get the point. Lmao. But saying they're overrated and reminds me of how... for awhile in internet land, there were far more people would complain about PeOpLe WhO tYpE LiKe Dis than there were people would actually type like that! I mean, fours ARE overly dramatic and often whiny, but I feel like the "overrated" thing is kind of a mimetic phenomenon more than a real one. I COULD BE WRONG. 

Maybe it's because there are disproportionately more Fours who post on the forum than most other types? Well of course, we're obsessed with ourselves! But that doesn't mean we're rated all that highly by others... lol...


----------



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

I think it's because of the general traits associated with 4 like intuitive, deep, different, individualistic, nonconformist, authentic, self-aware, creative and tasteful with an added element of elitism. Additionally, tragedy and turmoil spice a personality up, like we were protagonists in movies, stories or songs. All this gives depth to the character. It seems that we live in a culture of personality. I think this is what attracts people to identify with 4, specially young people or those who have suffered from depression. It's as @_kaleidoscope_ @_mushr00m_ (it was her who said it but I committed a mistake and named kaleidoscope, but maybe this interests you) said, mere idolization. The tortured artist, the individualistic. It screams unique snowflake syndrome. Look at the propaganda "Be yourself, be unique, be misunderstood" out there. I'm painting a caricature of what I see from reality, media influence and the adolescent ideal. Seven seems to portray this juvenile dream too.

I remembered a song from a band called of Montreal called Suffer for Fashion. It says:
"We just want to emote 'til we're dead
I know we suffer for fashion or whatever
We don't want these days to ever end
We just want to emasculate them forever
Forever, forever"

This is how I see it.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

I never got the fascination with the stereotypical 8s caveman-esque, mesomorphic tough guy aesthetic. I'd much rather be a pretty boy.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Phobic 6's are underrated. *come out wherever you be*
And 9's. 
Even 3's to an extent.

Thinking cp6's are pretty overrated. Yes, they are heroic etc they prove to be a popular type.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

*Underrated (Forum)*

Type 6 - Phobic 6s are pretty fuckin underrated, especially 6w7 for some reason. Cp6s are also misunderstood, but don't receive the kind of ridiculous bad press rofl they did back in the day..what with those dumbass cp6/8 comparisons. I wouldn't, however, say that cp6s are "overrated", maybe relative to phobic 6s but not in general. Some still, inwardly, view them as blustery buffoons even though people aren't as vocal about this. 


Type 9- Definitely underrated, especially 9w1s. It's like nobody notices them, and before @_Dying Acedia_ joined the forum, hardly anyone talked about what 9s were really about. It's almost like 9s are "invisible" on forum discussions. 

Type 2- For a long time 2s were seen as needy psychotic mother-hens and were pretty underrated and misunderstood. Since folks started posting and discussing Naranjo, Maitri and so on, there seems to have been a much better understanding of what this type is all about. All of a sudden 2s have taken on a 'seductive' mystique. Though, historically, on forums, they've been quite underrated. 

Type 1- This type has also been quite poorly understood and definitely underrated. The 1 forum is practically a fuckin graveyard :laughing:, but I have to say that some people, including myself rofl, have done a good job of bringing to light what the type is truly about, instead of re-hashing the tired old 'lily livered rule bound slaves/zealous school headmasters with sticks up their ass/ stick in the mud accountants or whatever' cliches. I mean there have been Ones that have led countries, movements, militaries and what not. So, 'lily livered' my ass LOL. 

aside:- And, I am a bit biased because of the sexy ass 1 have been with @_Swordsman of Mana_ and my other close type 1 friends, but I have to say that 1w9s are incredibly attractive to me for the same reasons you mentioned. They're grounded, principled, often have a detached philosophical/intellectual bent, have a quiet determination that belies a very passionate though outwardly stoic exterior. They also make very impressive leaders, if they are so inclined. They command respect without alienating/offending others with belligerence and arrogance lol (re: 8s and 7s). Once they let go of the self-restraint..hot damn...:blushed: :laughing:..it's the sexiest thing in the world. 


_________________________

Type 3:

I wouldn't say that 3s are either overrated or underrated. They're kind of in the middle. However, 3s are plenty misunderstood. They're seen as shallow cheerleaders/pretentious who live and die on the opinions of others. The reasons behind their ambition (besides affirmation of worth) are hardly touched on. By and large, they are still viewed in a positive-ish light because ambition, determination, charm are all socially valued traits. 

*Underrated (IRL)*

- Withdrawn types
- Introverted Phobic 6s

*Overrated (Forum)*
- 8, 7, 4, 5

*Overrated (IRL)*

Id types

Will expand later.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Cosmic Orgasm
I have a mixed opinion of phobic 6s. on one hand, they come across as pathetic. on the other hand they're just so damn cute! :blushed: 
typically I'm partial to the So-last phobic 6s


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

I think phobic 6's can be more sneaky, less upfront than cp6's. cp6's are still sneaky/up to no good though :tongue:


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

cudibloop said:


> I never got the fascination with the stereotypical 8s caveman-esque, mesomorphic tough guy aesthetic. I'd much rather be a pretty boy.


type 8 also grows their beard and hair our and doesn't wash them. or shower. they hunt for their own dinner and wear a loincloth. i also have a bearskin cloak, but usually i only wear it when my tribe makes a human sacrifice to the gods. and yeah, that means i'm only wearing a loincloth when i'm typing responses on the computer machine on the internet.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

cudibloop said:


> I never got the fascination with the stereotypical 8s caveman-esque, mesomorphic tough guy aesthetic. I'd much rather be a pretty boy.


that's more 8w9. 8 with a strong 7 wing is more extravagant and self-pampering with an eye for beauty. 

that said, I agree with you.
pretty boys>tough guys any day of the week


----------



## OrdinarinessIsAFWTD (Jun 28, 2011)

Coming from someone who might have this as a head-fix, Five is on the doggie doo-doo side. Past a high enough threshold, raw intelligence is superfluous, and Sevens can usually emulate their strengths quite readily.


----------



## dfoster (Mar 8, 2010)

hey y'all, first of all I like to think we are all here in the pursuit of knowledge. So I would like to be as objective as possible about what I observe:

Remember back when.. in the "dark age" of Perc that the atmosphere was riddled with stereotypes and suspicions? Remember when we all complained that there were too much stereotypes and personal biases, and people were being re-typed and bullied and the truth was chased out of the forum?

Well, I think it came from this place: the place where hiearchy and social standings and rankings were important. A place where the ego dominates and public perception is life and death. Where people pretend to be certain things because anything less would mean death. A place where truth was defeated.

I think we're drifting back to that place with threads like these:* how we rank, rate different types *

It's the same things as before but disguised to ourselves as "correcting the ranking" "correcting the rating". To say X is overrated or underrated is saying there is an implicit standard of merit ranking that should be *true
*
Because it's not "overrated in terms of strength", but just "overrated". To say that means you are individually the *authority *on which has merits and which doesn't. Because if you weren't the authority how can you possible say if anything is overrated or underrated? overrated or underrated in terms of what?


I mean look at the arrogance of this statement:


> they come across as pathetic. on the other hand they're just so damn cute!
> typically I'm partial to the So-last phobic 6s


Look at the arrogance and condescension: first, you are the authority to deem who is pathetic who is not; second you can grant them the fact that they are cute, as in a king granting something to a peasant. You call kids cute, a lesser person cute, you seldom call your peers cute. Not to mention the arrogance of saying you know people's types in the first place.

This is not an innocent statement because it came from an ugly ugly place: inferiority complex.

Who in life is so preoccupied with relative standings? with relative rankings? with perceived strength and merits?
Because the Enneagram is not life and types are not real people. I say the people who are preoccupied with relative ranking/rating between types are those who are insecure about their types or insecure about their own personal merits, especially socially perceived merits like strength.

Threads like: you know you're id when, you know you're intense when, who is overrated, who is underrated,... are all about emotional empathy we think we need because of our insecurities, not really from our need for knowledge.

If we respect the truth and our pursuit of it, we need to have respectful criticality for knowledge, or what we represent as knowledge coming out of our writing.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

@_dfoster_

I agree with the gist of your post. Though, when I think of types being underrated/overrated in the forum community or IRL, I don't see it so much as a reinforcement of an arbitrary hierarchy but a critique of it to the effect that all types are equally good and equally bad. So, there's no need to rate one higher or lower than another. It's an exploration of the hierarchy where we all know that superego types have been derided and the ids (esp. 8) and 4s and 5s have been glorified. To some extent, this bias is even evident in the works of some Enneagram 'theorists', the Fauvres' being a good example. RH's 6 description is among the worst, the bias standing out loud and clear. Also, for instance, when I note that phobic 6s are underrated, it's expressed as a criticism. Same with saying that 7s are overrated. In principle, there should be no hierarchy. The unfortunate truth is that there is a hierarchy, and one way to dismantle it is spelling it out for what it is and then dispelling the misunderstandings. 

I am sure there are counter-productive ways of answering the question posed in the OP. I still see potential for discussion that counters as opposed to consolidates the stereotyping, when such a topic is raised. 

In an MBTI sense, it would be fair to say that Introverts are, in North America anyway, quite underrated; whereas, extroverts are overrated as in overvalued relative to introverts who are seen as shy, incapable of gracefully handling social interactions or enter..tired cliche. It's a fact of life that different cultures will favour different traits. The "Prussian Character", whether actually a SO 6 or Prussian-ish Type 1 would have been highly valued (possibly overrated) in Nazi Germany in comparison to a more bohemian 7w6ish individual. So, I think, if approached the right way, this particular discussion isn't harkening back to the "Dark Ages" per se. 

The threads about which wing do you like more or which type is more intense etc etc. really don't seem geared to knowledge so much as gossip. Hell, they're fun to indulge once in a while because we need to have a sense of humour about stuff in general, but especially typology. I don't think those kinds of threads should be taken seriously by posters and readers. It's a bit like low-brow Ennea-comedy lol.  They're just not the breeding grounds of truth, knowledge and objectivity. Definitely. They're just cheap ass entertainment.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

dfoster said:


> I think we're drifting back to that place with threads like these:* how we rank, rate different types *
> 
> It's the same things as before but disguised to ourselves as "correcting the ranking" "correcting the rating". To say X is overrated or underrated is saying there is an implicit standard of merit ranking that should be *true
> *
> Because it's not "overrated in terms of strength", but just "overrated". To say that means you are individually the *authority *on which has merits and which doesn't. Because if you weren't the authority how can you possible say if anything is overrated or underrated? overrated or underrated in terms of what?


I get what you're saying, but I'm going to go ahead and say that you are crying wolf when there is not a significant problem. There have been a lot of rating threads here lately, but I feel like they have almost done the opposite: they have shown that this forum is capable of discussing sensitive topics respectfully, critically. 

For example: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagram-personality-theory-forum/161576-enneagram-type-most-loyal.html

In theory, that thread could have gone south in the way that you are describing. But, not only did it not, there were some really insightful discussions in there. 

It is true that in any discussion about the different types, there will be comparisons, contrasts, mis-truths and stereotypes. But, from what I've seen, if someone steps up to defend or better explain particular types that are misunderstood good things happen. People change their opinions, open their minds. 

Sure, there might be the occasional person who you just can't get through to. But, considering how many judgemental idiots are out there in the real world, I'd say we're doing pretty good.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

@Father of Dragons

The loyalty thread was a good discussion.


----------



## Inertia Junky (Aug 18, 2013)

Overrated

Whatever type you are. 


Underrated 

All other types.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Introverts are definitely not highly rated in general, outside maybe of Per-C yeah....properly understood, I think being what I think is clearly an introvert myself, I can easily see the bias against it in a huge ton of settings. As for the site, people who aren't introverts in PerC are all ENTP's, or occasionally ENFP's.


----------



## Tater Tot (May 28, 2012)

What do you mean by over/underrated? 

If you mean in terms of glorifying, I can actually see 6's becoming that way, because they used to be the opposite, (the sheep stereotype) and I can see everybody overcompensating. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I think 2's are underrated.


----------



## dfoster (Mar 8, 2010)

Cosmic Orgasm said:


> @_dfoster_
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure there are counter-productive ways of answering the question posed in the OP. I still see potential for discussion that counters as opposed to consolidates the stereotyping, when such a topic is raised.


First of all, I never say anything personally. I like TS, that's why I'm going out of my way to be sincere and call him out when I think he's being slick, intellectually slick. I've seen this trend in him over the 3 years I've been here. Instead of confronting the person, he uses threads like these to bash the person's type, all in the name of silliness. But it's just plain indirect bashing in the guise of intellectual pursuit, like innocent questions that are loaded.

For example, all anyone had to do is say a certain type is overrated and go railing against that type, like he did. I think it's petty and beneath what we are here for.

Of course I don't have concrete proofs but I've been here over three years and I believe I have pretty good judgement. I'm not the first person to object to TS's style on here.

I believe you feel the need to protect him because he has aligned himself to you. 

May be people won't believe me in this thread but at least I'm hoping to disrupt this trend. The truth is important enough for me to take a stand.

@_SOM_: Nothing personal against you, we've known each other for quite sometime and I really want to see you stepping out on your own. It's time to be upfront, to be earnest, to rely on your own strength. Be your own man. Then people will take you seriously. Don't claim authority on things you don't have. You don't need any of this stuff.


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

dfoster said:


> First of all, I never say anything personally. I like TS, that's why I'm going out of my way to be sincere and call him out when I think he's being slick, intellectually slick. I've seen this trend in him over the 3 years I've been here. Instead of confronting the person, he uses threads like these to bash the person's type, all in the name of silliness. But it's just plain indirect bashing in the guise of intellectual pursuit, like innocent questions that are loaded.


In all honesty, I couldn't care less whether you liked or despised SOM. He catches plenty of flack all over the place, and it's, for the most part, hilarious to watch. My post to you had more to do with the thread than the person who posted the thread. I would have said exactly the same thing had it been another member, so your presumptuousness in saying I have a personal stake in this...is absolutely baseless. This thread does not strike me as harkening back to the 'dark ages', when I dealt with a lot of shit myself because of the kinds of attitudes you criticized and that I have worked to change over time. 

So, I don't think THIS particular thread is harmful in the ways you suggest, and that is all my post to you was about. Hell, I didn't even look any deeper than the implications of this thread topic. If you think he uses these threads to flaunt his biases and insult types, feel free to share that opinion. Heck, I just said that those rating threads were "cheap entertainment" and "gossip", hardly the breeding grounds for objectivity and more. No, they do not offend me as wildly as they offend you. This opinion stands even for threads that SOM didn't even start. SO, surely I am not playing defense here when I am calling them for what they are. Even still, some such threads, whether started by SOM or somebody else, have had a few good discussions like the recent thread on loyalty. 



> For example, all anyone had to do is say a certain type is overrated and go railing against that type, like he did. I think it's petty and beneath what we are here for.


I already said in the post that there were counter-productive ways of answering the OP. 



> Of course I don't have concrete proofs but I've been here over three years and I believe I have pretty good judgement. I'm not the first person to objected to TS's style on here.


My post had nothing to do with your judgment of SOM. Funny how I am seeing you reach this conclusion about being 'allied' for the second time. I don't need concrete proof LOL, but I do remember you making a similar insinuation on another thread, where you implied that anyone who thought he was on the receiving end of hypocritical overreactions was "allied" with him in the manner of unhealthy 6s or some such statement, just as rooted in stereotypes as the comments you're aiming to criticize here. 

Interesting how that works, yeah? 



> I believe you feel the need to protect him because he has aligned himself to you.


Of course, it suits you to believe that, and feel free to hold on to that absurdity. :laughing: SOM and I have had more clashes and butt heads more times than I care to recall (what with him wanting to 'pimp slap' my ass because I disagreed with his typing back at some point rofl), and I have never hesitated from calling him out on shit because that's how I roll. 



> May be people won't believe me in this thread but at least I'm hoping to disrupt this trend. The truth is important enough for me to take a stand.


I am sure some do agree in more general terms or actually have specific grievances with him. 

And, it's just as easy for me to speak up when I think something, directed at SOM or another person, is not exactly an objective assessment of the situation (this thread, in our case). I have been here for nearly 3 years myself, and I know what's gone down over the years regarding the typing harassment stuff and more, more intimately than you do. 

Go ahead, and take a stand against him or against the "trend" you think he's responsible for, and in some ways he is, and he knows it. Be my guest. You have my blessing.  But, have the good sense to not make unfounded assumptions exaggerating how much personal stake you think others may have in this or how harmful something may or may not truly be, reasonably speaking. 

The hasty presumptuousness seems rather odd coming from someone like you who often seems to display discernment and wisdom.


----------



## Goosefish (Apr 20, 2010)

Which core types would you say are overrated and underrated in the working/business world?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Cosmic Orgasm said:


> If you think he uses these threads to flaunt his biases and insult types, feel free to share that opinion.


Well...he painted an image *cough* of 5 Sx as asexual, passionless and robotic. :crying: boo hoo. 
Oh wait I'm not an image type so I don't give a fuck. :tongue: Carry on.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

dfoster said:


> First of all, I never say anything personally. I like TS, that's why I'm going out of my way to be sincere and call him out when I think he's being slick, intellectually slick. I've seen this trend in him over the 3 years I've been here. Instead of confronting the person, he uses threads like these to bash the person's type, all in the name of silliness. But it's just plain indirect bashing in the guise of intellectual pursuit, like innocent questions that are loaded.


I bash all the types. maybe not equally (I'm well aware of most of my biases), but I'm far from indirect about it. 

For example, all anyone had to do is say a certain type is overrated and go railing against that type, like he did. I think it's petty and beneath what we are here for.

Of course I don't have concrete proofs but I've been here over three years and I believe I have pretty good judgement. I'm not the first person to object to TS's style on here.

I believe you feel the need to protect him because he has aligned himself to you. 

May be people won't believe me in this thread but at least I'm hoping to disrupt this trend. The truth is important enough for me to take a stand.



> @_SOM_: Nothing personal against you, we've known each other for quite sometime and I really want to see you stepping out on your own. It's time to be upfront, to be earnest, to rely on your own strength. Be your own man. Then people will take you seriously. Don't claim authority on things you don't have. You don't need any of this stuff.


well, if you're gonna start about being upfront, you might want to start by actually mentioning me :wink:
whether types are overrated/underrated is strictly a matter of opinion and personal taste, so I don't need any "authority" to post a thread like this. even so, most of my opinions are quite easy to justify. 
ex: "I have a mixed opinion of phobic 6s. on one hand, they come across as pathetic. on the other hand they're just so damn cute! :blushed: "
- 6s are Ego-Cowardice (Maitri). cowardice is pathetic (cp6s fight against their cowardice, hence why I refer to phobic 6s specifically). 
(btw, I don't use the word "cute" condescendingly. it's a quality I require in potential dates :wink: )

that said, it's not something I reserve solely for 6. I consider my own type kind of pathetic (7) as well as 9s and 4s in general. 

about your opinion of these threads in general, as others have already said, they're just as capable of being places people can come to object to stereotypes. I'll give you an example of comments I sometimes I make in threads like these:
_7s are overrated. people look at them and think they're all these happy-go-lucky party animals who are laughing and having fun all the time, but, truth be told, there's a lot of inner frustration and emptiness not far below the surface. while they are experts at escaping via hedonism and (possibly) intellectual pursuits, their ability to rationalize and stay several steps ahead of their emotions often keeps them from experiencing real joy and fulfillment._

anyway, nothing personal was taken, but saying you know me is a bit of an overstatement (nothing I'm butthurt over. this is the internet, I expect some degree of misconceptions). if that were the case, you would see that I am a _very_ direct person, perhaps to a fault. I am the guy who will tell the girl point blank that a dress makes her look fat and/or doesn't look good. while I make an effort to present my opinions in a "civilized" manner (sans personal attack and belligerence), I've always been a straight shooter when it comes to my opinions and (especially) my beliefs. this forum is no exception.

PS: btw if you'd like me to be more direct, let's begin: you're INFJ. there is Fe written all over this post :tongue:


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> 7s are overrated. people look at them and think they're all these happy-go-lucky party animals who are laughing and having fun all the time, but, truth be told, there's a lot of inner frustration and emptiness not far below the surface. while they are experts at escaping via hedonism and (possibly) intellectual pursuits, their ability to rationalize and stay several steps ahead of their emotions often keeps them from experiencing real joy and fulfillment.


So, how come it's overrated? Maybe it has something to do with how an enneatype presents himself, or because certain things are kept hidden or is more implicit as a symptom of the core fear? 

Other types can feel emptiness and frustration too. I don't see anything significantly 7 about that. Even the ways they deal with it is comparable. Other types rationalize too. Counter-envy (4) is rationalization. Fantasizing (4) or daydreaming (9) is like escapism a compulsive and self-indulgant form of denial and experiential avoidant coping. Still the types are very different so you'd need to go deeper or more specific than just frustration. 

The difference perhaps, 4s underrate themselves and 7s overrate themselves. :tongue:


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

There isn't really a way to answer this question at this point, because there are no types that are overrated, only type descriptions. Most of the posts here involve type descriptions, not core neuroses, and the latter is what is important in enneagram theory. Types cannot be over or underrated when we're not under or overrating types to begin with, or really understanding them. As most here know, I don't think any of the 9 types are represented in their reality here. We are under or overrating our vision of what the type looks like, either in real life in ourselves or the people we know, or in ideal. 

The core fears themselves are no better or worse than each other. Your shit smells just like everyone else's, and all we're really doing here is comparing odors.


----------



## marckos (May 6, 2011)

At least in my town/school

overrated
3w2/4 ( Ms and Mr money)
2w3, 6w7 sx( I have boobs therebefore i deserve special treatement, really tired of that shit) 
7w8
8w7 ( 8w9 ftw)
5w6
1w2

underrated

9w1 /1w9 
5w4 ( so refined, so exquisite, so delicious.....mmmm)
7w6


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Figure said:


> We are under or overrating our vision of what the type looks like, either in real life in ourselves or the people we know, or in ideal.




Great way of putting it. MOST of the time when I hear "type X is not like this" or "type Y is like that" we're speaking of _manifestations _that we have seen. Common manifestations, at that --- what we expect, given our perceptions of how people tend to turn out, when of a certain type.

There is nothing pretty about the neuroses themselves, but what is being contrasted here is common outcomes/directions people are driven in by the general structure of how the types play out in them....which I think in all honesty is definitely a valid topic of discussion, although yes you're strictly right totally that we're not under or overrating the type itself.



As to your other statement:




> The core fears themselves are no better or worse than each other. Your shit smells just like everyone else's, and all we're really doing here is comparing odors.




This is definitely I think the ideal way of looking at things, but I think in practice it might be the case that people's sympathies towards different types differ, and actually this may be part of how their own type plays out (i.e. how they see the rest of the enneagram!). There isn't a formulaic way necessarily of knowing how exactly it happens though.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

I couldn't consider 4s pathetic with that connection to 1 they have, which gives them a sense of integrity and allows them to demand respect. Not to mention, the fact that they tend to keep their problems to themselves. They also seem to have their shit together as far as deciding what they want their lives to be about, so in a way, they're very functional and adult-like.

They aren't pushovers unless they disintegrate to 2, and even then, they may be much more malicious and aesthetic about it than a phobic Six or a Nine.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

cudibloop said:


> I couldn't consider 4s pathetic with that connection to 1 they have, which gives them a sense of integrity and allows them to demand respect.


when healthy. 4s are not a naturally assertive type like 1 is



> Not to mention, the fact that they tend to keep their problems to themselves.


no, they don't



> They also seem to have their shit together as far as deciding what they want their lives to be about, so in a way, they're very functional and adult-like.


this is a plus. what makes them wimpy is they usually have an inability to get their shit together materially 



> They aren't pushovers unless they disintegrate to 2, and even then, they may be much more malicious and aesthetic about it than a phobic Six or a Nine.


petty maliciousness can still be pathetic


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

bearotter said:


> This is definitely I think the ideal way of looking at things, but I think in practice it might be the case that people's sympathies towards different types differ, and actually this may be part of how their own type plays out (i.e. how they see the rest of the enneagram!). There isn't a formulaic way necessarily of knowing how exactly it happens though.


Bam, yep. 

What you have touched on here is what everyone on this thread who has answered the original question needs to think about. Namely, that before you develop an inner observer to watch the things you do, you are probably staring at your habits so closely that you can't even realize they're in front of you. Once you step away and realize what they are, and realize that everyone else (aware of this or not) is dealing with their own set of issues, it really isn't necessary to compare who is "overrated" and "underrated." 

Really understanding how innate the core neuroses are makes them seem a lot less idealistic. The purpose of the enneagram is to come closer to Oneness, not farther away from it. You get closer by canning your biases, not sharpening them.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

I'm going to toot my own horn a bit and say Id types are typically _underrated_ IRL. 

why?
1) people like to observe them, but they typically don't want to be friends with them (think of the overachievers, flamboyant dandies and 
2) they're typically not good at being compliant, which leads others to believe they are unable to cooperative (though sometimes they are)
3) everyone loves to bitch about how conceited and selfish they are (which is often true, but why is that bad?)
4) people think they're too much. everyone loves to encourage the underdog, but once you start getting real success, they turn on you and get jealous
5) most people will tell you they value assertiveness, but, in practice, this often isn't the case, and more assertive types (often 1s and cp6s as well) have a tendency to offend people when asserting their needs and preferences
6) Id types typically draw attention to themselves (which they often enjoy, though it's just as often unintentional). in my culture at least, this sort of behavior is frowned upon. false h

essentially, they're kinda like villains and/or celebrities in that people tend to objectify them/admire them from a distance, but more often than not would prefer bitching about them, use them as scapegoats (not that the Id type will usually care) and have little desire to get close to them. 

PS: obviously, most of these behaviors and tendencies are not exclusive to Id types, but they are typically common among Id types (even if they are probably a touch exaggerated).


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

To indulge the OP, I'll say 3's are pretty overrated. People admire their productivity and industriousness, but I don't find them so great when they come at the expense of inner reflection.


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

Sexual 9w8s should get more praise than they do. They're certainly more interesting and aesthetic than many 5s and 8s, especially with 4 fixes. They're like withdrawn 7w8s with a little bit of Four.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

cudibloop said:


> Sexual 9w8s should get more praise than they do. They're certainly more interesting and aesthetic than many 5s and 8s, especially with 4 fixes. They're like withdrawn 7w8s with a little bit of Four.


the opposite. male 9w8s are incredibly overrated by the younger generation (because everyone wants to be the chill, weed smoking bro)

that said, I've gotten on well with female 9w8s. they have a pleasant combination of feminine/cordial with an undertone of instinctual, mamma-bear-ishness when it's necessary.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm going to toot my own horn a bit and say Id types are typically _underrated_ IRL.
> 
> why?
> 1) people like to observe them, but they typically don't want to be friends with them (think of the overachievers, flamboyant dandies and
> ...


:tongue: Narcissism is underrated! (not exclusive to Id types)



Expects to be recognized as superior and special, without superior accomplishments 
Expects constant attention, admiration and positive reinforcement from others 
Envies others and believes others envy him/her 
Is preoccupied with thoughts and fantasies of great success, enormous attractiveness, power, intelligence 
Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others 
Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior 
Has expectations of special treatment that are unrealistic 

But probably the most likely who are going to underrate those people are their rivals.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

Mr.Rbtoo said:


> I think it's because of the general traits associated with 4 like intuitive, deep, different, individualistic, nonconformist, authentic, self-aware, creative and tasteful with an added element of elitism. Additionally, tragedy and turmoil spice a personality up, like we were protagonists in movies, stories or songs. All this gives depth to the character. It seems that we live in a culture of personality. I think this is what attracts people to identify with 4, specially young people or those who have suffered from depression. It's as @_kaleidoscope_ @_mushr00m_ (it was her who said it but I committed a mistake and named kaleidoscope, but maybe this interests you) said, mere idolization. The tortured artist, the individualistic. It screams unique snowflake syndrome. Look at the propaganda "Be yourself, be unique, be misunderstood" out there. I'm painting a caricature of what I see from reality, media influence and the adolescent ideal. Seven seems to portray this juvenile dream too.
> 
> I remembered a song from a band called of Montreal called Suffer for Fashion. It says:
> "We just want to emote 'til we're dead
> ...


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I think that in North America anyway, the super-ego types are the most underrated with the ID types -especially 3s, being the most valued.

IRL, in such an extroverted culture; I don't see any of the withdrawn types as being anything but severely UNderrated.

OTOH, what do I know, being an so/sx 5? 

To misquote Shakespeare:

_Life's but a walking shadow, a poor passionless robot, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing._


----------



## OrdinarinessIsAFWTD (Jun 28, 2011)

Addendum: I stlll maintain that, in the developed world, Five is a disadvantageous enneatype, but paradoxically, would consider 358 a more robust overall package vs. a 378.

@dfoster Isn't it arguable that any personality inventory breachable by the so-called 'rankers' is bunk?


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

Being an Sx-first sounds pretty hot. The descriptions make you all sound like Priapic warriors straight out of a Scandinavian folk tale. So-first reads like an ISFJ description.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

cudibloop said:


> Being an Sx-first sounds pretty hot. The descriptions make you all sound like Priapic warriors straight out of a Scandinavian folk tale. So-first reads like an ISFJ description.












Sx doms are overrated because they are dramatic and make an impact, but truth be told, they're more like an engaging drama. entertaining to observe, but not something most people would really want in their own lives if they knew what it was really like. the added charisma is not worth
- having to constantly tone yourself down (at least for those of use who like keeping jobs and, not getting kicked out of class and staying out of jail due to some dumb urge of the moment)
- the emotional roller coasters than ensue in the dating game
- the constant longing, that grates away at you leaving you raw and unfulfilled
- nothing ever being enough. Sp and So doms can typically reach some sort of plateau, at which point they can say "life is good, I can relax"....not Sx doms. we're constantly looking for new stimulation
- ^and when we don't get this stimulation, we feel dead and shut off
- how difficult stimulation is to come by. Sx doms look at 90% of the world and think "who fucking cares?". 9% is "hmm, maybe that might be interesting", but the last %1 is that rare thing that truly captivates us and serves as a potential source of energy and life
- the proneness to addiction
- the REALLY stupid things we do for love because we're afraid of being without the fireworks of a satisfying relationship (I consider my own dependence on romantic intimacy extremely weak and inconvenient)


Sp/Sx is a much more ideal stacking imo


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

I'd much rather be sx first than sp first because I think my relationship with the external world would be more balanced, it would be less overwhelming, I'd be more connected to it rather than hiding in my own world. And I still have proneness to addiction and abusing my body in various ways. yet mostly, the sx fix comes from inside and the outside is just hard to take


----------



## Zebro (Sep 5, 2013)

I have no idea why this stacking gets so much glamour coverage. sx-first can be superficial and selfish. It is superficial and selfish because it does not truly seek to bond like social instinct. It wants high. It seeks to fulfill its own needs and when it has enough, it casts you away like used condoms. It can also be stupid to boundaries of others, overstep, and abuse unlike self preservation instinct.

IMHO


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zebro said:


> I have no idea why this stacking gets so much glamour coverage. sx-first can be superficial and selfish. It is superficial and selfish because it does not truly seek to bond like social instinct. It wants high. It seeks to fulfill its own needs and when it has enough, it casts you away like used condoms. It can also be stupid to boundaries of others, overstep, and abuse unlike self preservation instinct.
> 
> IMHO


Yeah, but what makes you think it is overrated?


----------



## Zebro (Sep 5, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Yeah, but what makes you think it is overrated?


It's a common typing usually based on the things associated with it like relationships, connections, and intimacy. These things are overvalued by loads of people and wrongly attributed to sx instinct.

How do you pronounce your username?


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Zebro said:


> I have no idea why this stacking gets so much glamour coverage. sx-first can be superficial and selfish. It is superficial and selfish because it does not truly seek to bond like social instinct. It wants high. It seeks to fulfill its own needs and when it has enough, it casts you away like used condoms. It can also be stupid to boundaries of others, overstep, and abuse unlike self preservation instinct.
> 
> IMHO


Every single person is fundamentally concerned with themselves, but I agree that it's exacerbated in the SX instinct, especially when unbalanced. I suppose that's why it has more of an id flavor in the decent descriptions out there.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> - nothing ever being enough. Sp and So doms can typically reach some sort of plateau, at which point they can say "life is good, I can relax"....not Sx doms. we're constantly looking for new stimulation
> - ^and when we don't get this stimulation, we feel dead and shut off


I agree with the other stuff you said, but I'm not sure about sp and so's reaching an ideal state where they are stress free. The dominant instinct is a compulsion regardless of which instinct it is; it doesn't just vanish when you fill up a meter, it is ever present in your life. Whether you wish it were or not...


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zebro said:


> It's a common typing usually based on the things associated with it like relationships, connections, and intimacy. These things are overvalued by loads of people and wrongly attributed to sx instinct.
> 
> How do you pronounce your username?


Mimesis - Definition for Mimesis at NiceDefinition.com


No, seems more like you are judging Sx based on (I guess your own) typically So or Sp needs/values. But it appears to me you feel underrated. 

Because you are suggesting that what people commonly look for, they are looking in the wrong place, and they would have been better off with someone like you.

So the question then would be, how come they don't see that, and are not looking in the right place? Perhaps Sx is just good at promoting oneself and draw attention and appeal? Is it lack of judgement or lack of attraction? 

Hm...just looking at your way of arguing, I'd say that demonizing and fear tactics is not sexy (okay that an Sx argument, lol), and rather than invalidating people's judgement (shaming) you can better persuade them by appealing to their ability to judge, and show them the money. Sort of. Actually, why not?


----------



## Zebro (Sep 5, 2013)

mimesis said:


> Mimesis - Definition for Mimesis at NiceDefinition.com
> 
> 
> No, seems more like you are judging Sx based on (I guess your own) typically So or Sp needs/values. But it appears to me you feel underrated.
> ...


Wow. You read into all that from what I wrote? I had a feeling something was weird with your questioning. It felt like bait. 

And what's with the "have been better off with someone like you" projection? Who am I suppose to be in relation to whom? You? They? I take it you're sx first. Are we sore that our instinct we so heavily identified with have been put under scrutiny? Or am I imagining it? 



> So the question then would be, how come they don't see that, and are not looking in the right place? Perhaps Sx is just good at promoting oneself and draw attention and appeal? Is it lack of judgement or lack of attraction?


I mention that there is a lot of association between universal stuff like connections and intimacy with sx instinct. What are you even talking about? 



> Hm...just looking at your way of arguing, I'd say that demonizing and fear tactics is not sexy (okay that an Sx argument, lol), and rather than invalidating people's judgement (shaming) you can better persuade them by appealing to their ability to judge, and show them the money. Sort of. Actually, why not?


Hm... you are assigning weird values to my statements again. Demonizing? Fear tactic? What are _you _doing? Look in the mirror. Your style seems to be to distance yourself from anything personal or HONEST, ie when I ask you about your username, you copy and pasted a link. Hinting at sarcasm. The conversation there could've went towards something of significance, perhaps entailing why that name is of any meaning to you. Also, you throw out a neutral or vague question, perhaps knowing full well the answer, in order attack it and to shame me. From the way you argued, it seems as though you have something else in mind before I even answered seeing as your response makes no sense to me and is hostile towards me. It seems preemptive and contemplative in a way. And your name sounds familiar. I coulda sword I saw you somewhere before...

*Edit:*
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=26126#.Uk8jSoasjTo

Oh right. Are you this person? The genius that has no idea what a heart type is? The genius that typed themself as 4 and Boby Dylan a 3? Bravo.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Zebro said:


> I have no idea why this stacking gets so much glamour coverage. sx-first can be superficial and selfish. It is superficial and selfish because it does not truly seek to bond like social instinct. It wants high. It seeks to fulfill its own needs and when it has enough, it casts you away like used condoms. It can also be stupid to boundaries of others, overstep, and abuse unlike self preservation instinct.
> 
> IMHO


I actually strongly disagree with your assessment of the sx instinct. Each of our primary instincts is based in a compulsion, an insecurity... it is something we are fixated on, and therefore feel uncertain of. In practice, this makes most sx first people _more_ driven for deep, meaningful one on one connections than the other instincts. Primarily because it holds the promise of filling our sense of inner insecurity with regards to intimacy. 

Relationships and connections are important to everyone, regardless of type. But, sp-types are interested in them for physical survival. So-types are interested them as a reassurance of their place within the larger picture, as a way to feeling like they "belong". Sx-types are called sexual types though because they are drawn to individuals in order to give themselves meaning through a direct, intimate bond. 

In all honesty the concept of using people and "casting them away" has more the flavour of someone with an unhealthy sx-secondary stacking. There, bonding would not be about direct fulfillment, but more as a means to an end - satisfying their dominant instinct. But, you're talking about extremely unhealthy behavior in general.

Also, I would advise you against making direct personal attacks against others. You're really crossing the line. Besides, you wouldn't want to get hit with ban hammer, would you?


----------



## Zebro (Sep 5, 2013)

@_mimesis_

Lol @ that piece of 12 page shit thread. Just got done reading. Another wannabe 4. It's no wonder the reaction I got from you. I wonder now if you had some other scuffle in the past regarding your knowledge of types and people dismissing your self typing. Sensitivity there, or so it seems.

On to other things. You don't make it clear. Do you still type as sx 4w5? You seem like some sort of 6 or even 1. In case you're still confused. You seem heart last based on your response here and that thread. Lacking in reactivity, incompetence in mirroring. Idiocy in regards to heart center/image intelligence too. Seems like head type intelligence center core. Other then assigning stuff like fear tactic so quickly on to me (something I've observed 6s to do, assigning and making likes/dislikes values, us, them) there are other tells. There's ego investment for those two types in being right and shooting down arguments. Of course everyone has a bit of this and that, but it is most prominent in those two types. 

I hope you enjoy the taste of your own medicine. Me deriving all sorts of bullshit to you and your character based on what's written as opposed to attacking the theory instead.


----------



## Zebro (Sep 5, 2013)

Father of Dragons said:


> I actually strongly disagree with your assessment of the sx instinct. Our primary instinct is based in a compulsion, an insecurity... it is something we are fixated on, and are therefore feel uncertain of. In practice, this makes most sx first people _more_ driven for deep, meaningful one on one connections. Primarily because it holds the promise of filling our sense of inner insecurity with regards to intimacy.
> 
> Relationships and connections are important to everyone, regardless of type. But, sp-types are interested in them for physical survival. So-types are interested them as a reassurance of their place within the larger picture, as a way to feeling like they "belong." Sx-types are called sexual types though because they are drawn to individuals in order to give themselves meaning through a direct, intimate bond.
> 
> ...


http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/showthread.php/41782-Instinct-workshop-notes-sp-so-sx
The Enneagram Institute Discussion Board - The Spiritual Instincts


You tell me to stop with direct insults? I gave my opinion, in which I made clear was an opinion about the instincts. And the idiot came and attacked my character and assign all sorts of stuff on to me. I do not like that sir.

Are you sx first?


----------



## cudibloop (Oct 11, 2012)

Sexual 6s can be an interesting, attractive, provocative and relatively independent bunch, if I haven't noticed before. 6w7 Sx/Sp's are sex.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Zebro said:


> You tell me to stop with direct insults? I gave my opinion, in which I made clear was an opinion about the instincts. And the idiot came and attacked my character and assign all sorts of stuff on to me. I do not like that sir.


Regardless, looking up someone's post history on different forums to attack their intelligence and understanding of type is pretty low. I'm sure you can realize that yourself if you stop and think about it for a second.

To be fair though, there is quite a bit of ambiguity when it comes to instinct theory. If you're interested, one of my preferred sources would be this: http://personalitycafe.com/enneagra...ce-thread-instinctual-variants-stackings.html

Here's what it says about sx:

_"Summary of SX instinct 
_

_primary concern - intense experiences, connections, and contacts, wide-ranging and exploratory, in order to find something to "complete" them inside (sky diving, deep conversations, exciting movies)_
_primary focus - people and attractions promising intense energy and charge_
_primary ambition - looking outside themselves for the person or situation that will complete them, and then obsessing over that completing element_
_primary stresses - lack of intense mental or emotional stimulation, lack of an intense connection or experience_
_coping methods (unhealthy) - scattered attention, lack of focus, sexual promiscuity, intensely avoiding intense experiences and connections with a fearful and dysfunctional attitude toward sex, intimacy, and other intense "completing" experiences, as is skewed by the secondary instinct__"_


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zebro said:


> @_mimesis_
> 
> Lol @ that piece of 12 page shit thread. Just got done reading. Another wannabe 4. It's no wonder the reaction I got from you. I wonder now if you had some other scuffle in the past regarding your knowledge of types and people dismissing your self typing. Sensitivity there, or so it seems.
> 
> ...


Yes, you are very clear now. Actually no, I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Thanks for mirroring that back to me. If I knew what thread you are referring to, maybe it would even make sense. 

Feel free to type me whatever you like. I don't have a type I would like to be.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Father of Dragons said:


> I agree with the other stuff you said, but I'm not sure about sp and so's reaching an ideal state where they are stress free. The dominant instinct is a compulsion regardless of which instinct it is; it doesn't just vanish when you fill up a meter, it is ever present in your life. Whether you wish it were or not...


I agree. I had second thoughts looking back at that point.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zebro said:


> Wow. You read into all that from what I wrote? I had a feeling something was weird with your questioning. It felt like bait.
> 
> And what's with the "have been better off with someone like you" projection? Who am I suppose to be in relation to whom? You? They? I take it you're sx first. Are we sore that our instinct we so heavily identified with have been put under scrutiny? Or am I imagining it?


Lol. No I didn't mind what you said about Sx. I actually agree with you that Sx isn't so much about bonding as it is about fusion and intensity. Now I do happen to have bonds that last perhaps almost as long as you live, and I'd be interested to hear how lasting your relations have been. I think I gravitate to Sx types most anyway. Like attracts like, so I really can't be bothered whether Sx is over or underrated. You sounded a bit self-righteous though. Every instinct can be looking for self-interest (hence self-preservation), even So. They also all have a self-sacrificing element.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zebro said:


> Hm... you are assigning weird values to my statements again. Demonizing? Fear tactic? What are _you _doing? Look in the mirror. Your style seems to be to distance yourself from anything personal or HONEST, ie when I ask you about your username, you copy and pasted a link. Hinting at sarcasm. The conversation there could've went towards something of significance, perhaps entailing why that name is of any meaning to you.


You asked how to pronounce it so I gave you a link with phonetic writing and a sound file. I actually looked it up because I wasn't so sure of it myself, English not being my native language. How is that hinting at sarcasm? 

Mimesis refers to the social phenomenon of people imitating each others behavior, or desiring for things others have or do, and the competition getting nastier and nastier to ultimately lead to a mimetic crisis and scapegoating of the outcast, like witch hunting etc. Pretty much like when you say 'another wanna be four'. You are imitating behavior, saying that empowers you, because others have said it. At someone else's expense of course. The problem is that people introject values because they cannot create and apperceive value themselves, or, it just seems to be worth more when someone else does or has it. I thought to use the name in an instant when I subscribed here though, for no particular reason. 



Envy said:


> But envy is more or less than desire. It begins with the almost frantic sense of emptiness inside oneself, as if the pump of one's heart were sucking on air. One has to be blind to perceive the emptiness, of course, but that's what envy is, a selective blindness. _Invidia_, Latin for envy, translates as "nonsight," and Dante had the envious plodding along under cloaks of lead, their eyes sewn shut with leaden wire. What they are blind to is what they have, God-given and humanly nurtured, in themselves".


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Zebro said:


> *Edit:*
> The Enneagram Institute Discussion Board - Bob Dylan type reconsideration
> 
> Oh right. Are you this person? The genius that has no idea what a heart type is? The genius that typed themself as 4 and Boby Dylan a 3? Bravo.


Nope. I'm not that person and don't know him either. I think we both use Si, and from personal experience as an INFP I know it can be like a very short fuse and detonate the Fi/Te bomb, or get yourself caught in Fi-Si looping hostility and avoidance, if you rely on it too much and act on its impulse or how it feels

Sx is 'intimate' by virtue of So and Sp. Sx can indeed cross boundaries, but it crosses the boundaries that Sp sets and preserves (personal safety) and So negotiates (shame, taboo). 

Sx sort of trumps both instincts, and seek to connect. Possibly intimacy for you is more in the sense of feeling vulnerable and needing to feel in safe place, in So sense or So-standards (approval rather than resonate or appeal), and desire to feel safe with someone, from judgement. The Sx instinct is more like making yourself vulnerable, and defy shame and take risk, and go beyond that boundary because crossing that boundary is the erotic (sensuous or spiritual) intensity.


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Overrated: 4, 5, 8, cp6, sx instinct

Underrated: 3, 7, maybe 1, sp instinct

Meh: 2, phobic 6, 9, so instinct


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Well...he painted an image *cough* of 5 Sx as asexual, passionless and robotic. :crying: boo hoo.
> Oh wait I'm not an image type so I don't give a fuck. :tongue: Carry on.


From what I understand it, all 5s _but_ the sx 5s are asexual, robotic and passionless beings. SoM obviously preferring and thinking that sx spark over-weights whatever dryness 5 would bring with it. And personally, being an sx 5, I'm rather flattered he think I am considering it goes pretty starkly against of how I experience myself lulz.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Zebro said:


> It's a common typing usually based on the things associated with it like relationships, connections, and intimacy. These things are overvalued by loads of people and wrongly attributed to sx instinct.
> 
> How do you pronounce your username?


Again, agreed. The Sx instinct is falsely labeled the one-on-one instinct, so anyone introverted and romantic will probably identify with it much more than say, with the social instinct (which most descriptions get wrong). For what it's worth, I don't see your assessment of Sx as driven by insecurity or shaming.


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Lol. No I didn't mind what you said about Sx. I actually agree with you that Sx isn't so much about bonding as it is about fusion and intensity. Now I do happen to have bonds that last perhaps almost as long as you live, and I'd be interested to hear how lasting your relations have been. I think I gravitate to Sx types most anyway. Like attracts like, so I really can't be bothered whether Sx is over or underrated. You sounded a bit self-righteous though. Every instinct can be looking for self-interest (hence self-preservation), even So. They also all have a self-sacrificing element.


I still don't get how you went from 'a bit self-righteous' to attributing values to the post out of thin air, _especially_ if you agree with what's being said. Where on earth did you see shaming and insecurity? Assuming things about someone you know nothing about sounds pretentious. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt instead.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> From what I understand it, all 5s _but_ the sx 5s are asexual, robotic and passionless beings. SoM obviously preferring and thinking that sx spark over-weights whatever dryness 5 would bring with it. And personally, being an sx 5, I'm rather flattered he think I am considering it goes pretty starkly against of how I experience myself lulz.


On the other hand @Swordsman of Mana said 'comes over as', you can't argue with that can you? I guess it does and I guess you do. I really wouldn't know. Disembodied mind doesn't apply to me much. And sometimes when I get into the groove, some people just stop dancing, apparently because my moves are so fkn smooth. I need to retrain myself actually.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Ananael said:


> Overrated: 4, 5, 8, cp6, sx instinct
> Underrated: 3, 7, maybe 1, sp instinct
> Meh: 2, phobic 6, 9, so instinct


how is 7 underrated and cp6 overrated? 

I agree with the rest


----------



## Helios (May 30, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> how is 7 underrated and cp6 overrated?
> 
> I agree with the rest


From my experience on the forum, everyone seems to like comparing cp6 to type 8 in order to boost it's reputation as a type worth being acknowledged as "badass in ways that type 8 isn't." While I am inclined to agree with that idea, the cp6 vs 8 thing is just overdone in my opinion, and it's still highly reflective of the preconceived notions that many here hold about type 8. Comparing type cp6 to 8 takes away from how "underrated" the type might be.

I chose 7 mostly because it's the type I know relatively little about, and on the forum it holds the connotation of Ne or Se dom trolls and thrill seekers (which might give reason to some to idealize it, along with it's status as an id type), and I don't think the negative sides of 7 are hashed out nearly as much as those of 4, 5, 8, and even 6.


----------



## Lotan (Aug 10, 2012)

I know I'll be talking about myself here, but I do think the SP instinct is really underrated. I always see it portrayed as boring, or as "primitive" - only concerned with base physical needs and comforts. Sure, primal physical needs are part of the SP instinct but they're not all that encompasses it. The sentient being dimension of this instinct is often overlooked; things like desire for independence, drive to reach one's goals, careful planning, ability to overcome, etc. (not that any of these are SP-dom exclusive but I think they can be associated with it). We're not all overly fussy people that spend all day thinking about buying new bed sheets and what to cook for dinner!


----------



## kaleidoscope (Jan 19, 2012)

Lotan said:


> I know I'll be talking about myself here, but I do think the SP instinct is really underrated. I always see it portrayed as boring, or as "primitive" - only concerned with base physical needs and comforts. Sure, primal physical needs are part of the SP instinct but they're not all that encompasses it. The sentient being dimension of this instinct is often overlooked; things like desire for independence, drive to reach one's goals, careful planning, ability to overcome, etc. (not that any of these are SP-dom exclusive but I think they can be associated with it). We're not all overly fussy people that spend all day thinking about buying new bed sheets and what to cook for dinner!


And yet, SOC-last seems to be everyone's stacking around here. It seems over-typed, because social-last just sounds like someone introverted and socially awkward. At the same time, SP is strangely attributed qualities like boring. When most people talk about that instinct, they have in mind a stereotypical xSTJ SP 6. Always concerned with finances, investments, boring house stuff, food and furniture. 

Another thing that drives me crazy is whenever I try to describe SP, and I get a response like "that's not strictly SP". It always ends up described through another theory, or core type, or a combination of both. Drive for independence? Could just be the core type. Careful planning? He's also an ISTJ. It's frustrating.


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> Sx doms are overrated because they are dramatic and make an impact, but truth be told, they're more like an engaging drama. entertaining to observe, but not something most people would really want in their own lives if they knew what it was really like. the added charisma is not worth
> - having to constantly tone yourself down (at least for those of use who like keeping jobs and, not getting kicked out of class and staying out of jail due to some dumb urge of the moment)
> - the emotional roller coasters than ensue in the dating game
> - the constant longing, that grates away at you leaving you raw and unfulfilled
> ...


You beat yourself up too much.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Ice Ghost said:


> You beat yourself up too much.


it's not "I'm beating myself up" as much as "here are some examples of the inconvenient shit I have to deal with due to my temperament"

trust me, I've never been one to be self critical :tongue:


----------



## Sina (Oct 27, 2010)

Lotan said:


> I know I'll be talking about myself here, but I do think the SP instinct is really underrated. I always see it portrayed as boring, or as "primitive" - only concerned with base physical needs and comforts. Sure, primal physical needs are part of the SP instinct but they're not all that encompasses it. The sentient being dimension of this instinct is often overlooked; things like desire for independence, drive to reach one's goals, careful planning, ability to overcome, etc. (not that any of these are SP-dom exclusive but I think they can be associated with it). We're not all overly fussy people that spend all day thinking about buying new bed sheets and what to cook for dinner!



I've said it before, and I'll say it again. SP, at the core, is not about the minutiae of household management. SP is about building foundations (financial, investing time and effort into close personal relationships), consolidating and acquiring resources (that contribute to said foundation, groundedness and awareness of your bodily needs (indulgence of the same), nesting, thriving and autonomy. For the more family oriented SPs, the instinct extends to *naturally* focusing on immediate family in a pronounced way. It's a rare SP dom, unless unhealthy, who is out of synch with the stability(financial and at times emotional) needs of those they are close to. SP 3s who often find themselves in tycoon/providers -at-home role would be a good example. SPs tend to project their own needs (for comfort or indulgence, for physical and emotional wellness) on others, as a result of which they can be rather understanding where these are concerned. 

BUT, SP dominance doesn't imply sitting by and adjusting the room temperature all day long or fussing around with the bedding or losing your shit over when dinner would arrive etc. etc. 

I am as SP as it gets, and I am actually very thrill seeking. As long as I am enduring physical discomfort of my own volition, I'll handle it pretty well. I have little patience for tracking bill payments or whatever, and I do it because I need to not because I find it therapeutic. :laughing: I actually mock people who always need things to be 'just so'. It's like grow a pair, and learn to roughhouse with the environment once in a while. It strikes me as very pansy-like to fuss over a scratchy sweater or whatever. I am nearly aroused by pleasant sounds, touch, tastes and fragrances. I enjoy the physical world a great deal (not that it has to be an Sp thing), but fussy is the last word anyone would use for me. 





kaleidoscope said:


> And yet, SOC-last seems to be everyone's stacking around here. It seems over-typed, because social-last just sounds like someone introverted and socially awkward. At the same time, SP is strangely attributed qualities like boring. When most people talk about that instinct, they have in mind a stereotypical xSTJ SP 6. Always concerned with finances, investments, boring house stuff, food and furniture.
> 
> Another thing that drives me crazy is whenever I try to describe SP, and I get a response like "that's not strictly SP". It always ends up described through another theory, or core type, or a combination of both. Drive for independence? Could just be the core type. Careful planning? He's also an ISTJ. It's frustrating.


Yup.

SOC last has nothing to do with poor social skills. It's more about the focus of attention. SOC last is overtyped, but people also overtype SOC first in others on grounds such as ease of influence or social charm. It's important to look at it as a *fixation* or compulsion. In fact, as you know, there are SO firsts who are very sensitive to social dynamics, resulting in emphatic shyness or awkwardness. There are SO lasts who can maneuver social situations gracefully, but have a very loose grasp of hierarchies, social attunement, tracking key players, reading the "energy" of a group or understanding the nature of bonds between groups and those that compromise them (this is what SO is about). 

SP is seen as the "boring" xSTJ 6 or stick up the ass type 1 accountant person instinct. :laughing: In fact, Sp firsts can be extremely sensual, opulent and physically grounded. They have an earthy sensuality to them that can be unmistakable and very alluring. The way they disclose information about themselves on their own terms while slowly drawing you out of your own shell and the way they invest themselves into ensuring the longevity of a relationship are all very attractive qualities. But naah, dem SP doms be boring ass tools. 

I love food and home decor, but I delegate the *work* part. Damn gurl, ain't nobody got time to fuss over the kitchen sink.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

kaleidoscope said:


> I still don't get how you went from 'a bit self-righteous' to attributing values to the post out of thin air, especially if you agree with what's being said. Where on earth did you see shaming and insecurity? Assuming things about someone you know nothing about sounds pretentious. Try giving people the benefit of the doubt instead.


Hang on, I didn't say I agreed with everything. I said I didn't have a problem with Sx being under scrutiny. And I'm not assuming to know, I just work with possible explanations (Ne), and I am mostly focused on the perspective of instincts, but I am always interested in how someone can see things the way they seem. Also, in general, and not referring to this situation I don't think you need to know a person to pick up insecurity. For instance, there is plenty of real world evidence that despite people trying to hide it, malicious predators have a nose for it. But if you like to believe it's not possible to pick up cues unless you know some one, that's fine with me. 'Shaming' was used hyperbollically and inbetween brackets, implying So perspective. 

I'll repeat the first post here. 



> I have no idea why this stacking gets so much glamour coverage. sx-first can be superficial and selfish.
> It is superficial and selfish because it does not truly seek to bond like social instinct.
> It wants high. It seeks to fulfill its own needs and when it has enough, it casts you away like used condoms.
> It can also be stupid to boundaries of others, overstep, and abuse unlike self preservation instinct.


This is what came out of my Subtext translator (Ne)
He doesn't just say overrated, but describes it as Sx having a glamour-status or 'image', like rockstars and beaumonde. Sx is just about looking good, there is no psycho-social or spiritual dimension or depth to it. It is selfish and like an addict ('high' > insert image junkie ) who abuses the other by misleading them (not truly seeking to bond, like So) or overstep their boundaries, and to dispose of them after he's gotten his fix (what he truly seeked for), unlike Sp. 

As for my response, just pretend I was being a junkie asking, 'yeah...but what makes you think junkies are overrated? '. Or like Gordon Gekko's 'Greed is good!' But I was a bit giddy, because...seriously? And yes, when he writes 'like So' or 'unlike Sp', in this context I'd call it self-righteous, as if So and Sp can not (ever) be selfish or superficial. He could criticize Sx without involving himself that way, because now a term like 'glamorous' doesn't sound so objective to me anymore. It reads like a gossip magazine reveiling a Rockstar celebrity is truly a drug addict. Now, I don't mind, because for me there is nothing glamorous about Sx, in the sense that Sx in itself isn't attractive but seeks attraction. 



> It's a common typing usually based on the things associated with it like relationships, connections, and intimacy. These things are overvalued by loads of people and wrongly attributed to sx instinct.


I disagree here too, because Sx is about connecting, and the long term relationships that I have is for the simple reason that we still 'connect' on that deep level of understanding every time we meet and it is anything but superficial. You don't need to connect on that level to have a relationship or bond. People can bond for economic purposes, or for personal safety, without any need to connect on a deep emotional or intimate level, and sometimes merely based on bloodline. When the shared objectives of the relation are not met satisfactory it may just as much be assumed the relation will discontinue, or lose priority in terms of sacrificing energy. 

Now I wouldn't say Sx can't act like a junkie, but selfishness and superficiality has nothing to do with instinct (at least not as an attribute itself). It would be wrong to see So as 'unselfish', in the sense of repressing self-interest. We are not unselfish to anyone, so there is a focus on determining in-group and out-group (bond or non-bond, or level of bond if you will). There is proof for instance that the cuddle hormone Oxytocin is also involved when we determine whether to move into a dangerous situation to save a fellow human being, and when it is not considered an in-group person we might leave him to die. Also think of the motives behind the unselfish behavior of e2, the Helper. 

With regard to being superficial, I think Sp is most protective of privacy and self-contained, and fears being engulfed and will be most inclined to build a fortress around oneself while hoarding resources. I wouldn't say there is a lack of emotional depth per se, it's just not inclined to reveal it or share it. This has not so much to do with 'insecurity' just self-protection, and a conservative tendency not to disclose or risk more than is necessary. Likewise, I gave an example of So, with regard to social acceptance. Why do you think some people need an atmosphere of dimmed light (candle light) or even complete darkness to open oneself up for an intimate connection?


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Heh, oh good, someone finally brought up the issue of over-archetyping Sp people. It's about time. 

A lot of people seem to type themselves as Sp/Sx here, and I'm not sure that's actually the case. It's also not anything like what is described in that stupid Buddhist hierarchy thing where it's described as starving ghosts whose lives suck because get burnt for wanting a cookie. It's simply that your attention is directed towards things that will help guarantee your survival - whether or not you identify them that way, and whether or not you actually do anything about them - and that a sense of personal passion or shared mutuality with someone or something else is part of that need. 

I'll try and paint a picture of it here. 

I'm not exactly frugal, though I do save and know how to invest. My money doesn't go to rocking nights at the bar though, it goes to things to keep my apartment the way I want it to be, foods I like to eat (or try), entertainment I can have in my apartment, weekly tennis, and things like solo road trips - during which I simply look for _more _ways to feel comfortable. I want to get a dog, but won't because the people I am close enough with to ask to take care of it when I'm away on travel live far away. 

Within this bubble I've created, which itself is quite put together, there is literally no attention to what other people are doing, who's done what, or what is happening outside. Don't ask me about movies, which actresses are hot, who had a baby, the Royal family shit, the government shutdown, or fantasy football. I couldn't know less, and couldn't care less.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

@_Figure_ I completely agree that the Buddhist levels of reincarnation comparison is one of the most misleading things regarding stacking. The idea that specific stackings could be inherently more or less healthy is really dumb. Every person is skewed and compulsive with regards to their dominant instinct, regardless of which it is. 

I actually let myself be misled into thinking I was sx/sp because I identified with the description of "hungry ghosts", simply because I can be quite needy at times. I wondered "how could I possibly be a God, my life isn't that easy and fun. I must not be a sx/so then..." . I'm still not 100% on my stacking, but that was a very misleading concept to follow. I think the idea of combining Buddhism and the Enneagram was too seductive not to fall under it's spell.

As an aside I definitely agree that sp is underrated. Many sp-firsts are extremely unique, charismatic. Take the fellow in my avatar for instance.


----------



## The Scorched Earth (May 17, 2010)

Father of Dragons said:


> @_Figure_ I completely agree that the Buddhist levels of reincarnation comparison is one of the most misleading things regarding stacking. The idea that specific stackings could be inherently more or less healthy is really dumb. Every person is skewed and compulsive with regards to their dominant instinct, regardless of which it is.
> 
> I actually let myself be misled into thinking I was sx/sp because I identified with the description of "hungry ghosts", simply because I can be quite needy at times. I wondered "how could I possibly be a God, my life isn't that easy and fun. I must not be a sx/so then..." . I'm still not 100% on my stacking, but that was a very misleading concept to follow. I think the idea of combining Buddhism and the Enneagram was too seductive not to fall under it's spell.
> 
> As an aside I definitely agree that sp is underrated. Many sp-firsts are extremely unique, charismatic. Take the fellow in my avatar for instance.


Hmm, I actually like that Buddhist designation. It describes Sx/Sp perfectly.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Ice Ghost said:


> Hmm, I actually like that Buddhist designation. It describes Sx/Sp perfectly.


I think there is some truth in those descriptions, but I dislike the idea that certain stackings are inherently happier or healthier than others, as that article implies. I guess I dislike the idea of any typing hierarchy as a matter of principle. In my mind any stacking can be comfortable in most situations if they are mature and well-adjusted.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Father of Dragons said:


> @_Figure_ I completely agree that the Buddhist levels of reincarnation comparison is one of the most misleading things regarding stacking. The idea that specific stackings could be inherently more or less healthy is really dumb. Every person is skewed and compulsive with regards to their dominant instinct, regardless of which it is.
> 
> I actually let myself be misled into thinking I was sx/sp because I identified with the description of "hungry ghosts", simply because I can be quite needy at times. I wondered "how could I possibly be a God, my life isn't that easy and fun. I must not be a sx/so then..." . I'm still not 100% on my stacking, but that was a very misleading concept to follow. I think the idea of combining Buddhism and the Enneagram was too seductive not to fall under it's spell.
> 
> As an aside I definitely agree that sp is underrated. Many sp-firsts are extremely unique, charismatic. Take the fellow in my avatar for instance.


I never heard of that, so I googled it but the comparison/mapping with Bhavacakra is contrived, flawed and silly cause it totally misses the point. 

Then again, if we just don't identify ourselves with it, by attaching ourselves to a certain enneagram instinct or stacking, we wouldn't need to bother about being under or overrated. Saying that many Sp first are extremely unique and charismatic, already sounds a bit apologetic.


----------



## meridannight (Nov 23, 2012)

Figure said:


> It's also not anything like what is described in that stupid Buddhist hierarchy thing where it's described as starving ghosts whose lives suck because get burnt for wanting a cookie.


i saw that ''buddhist'' analogy thing once. Dante Alighieri already wrote a book on that in the 14th century. it's fiction and hyperactive imagination of the author, whoever he was who wrote it. some people just like to inject mysticism into everything.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

mimesis said:


> I never heard of that, so I googled it but the comparison/mapping with Bhavacakra is contrived, flawed and silly cause it totally misses the point.
> 
> Then again, if we just don't identify ourselves with it, by attaching ourselves to a certain enneagram instinct or stacking, we wouldn't need to bother about being under or overrated. Saying that many Sp first are extremely unique and charismatic, already sounds a bit apologetic.


I think I get what you're saying, but you're misinterpreting the concept of under/overrating types as hierarchical in spirit. My understanding is that we are talking about appearances, the _impression_ that the community tends to have. And, in general the PerC community tends to over rate sx and under rate so and sp. Partly because of misunderstandings of what they really _are_. I definitely didn't mean to sound apologetic though; perhaps I didn't word it in the best way.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Father of Dragons said:


> I think I get what you're saying, but you're misinterpreting the concept of under/overrating types as hierarchical in spirit. My understanding is that we are talking about appearances, the _impression_ that the community tends to have. And, in general the PerC community tends to over rate sx and under rate so and sp. Partly because of misunderstandings of what they really _are_. I definitely didn't mean to sound apologetic though; perhaps I didn't word it in the best way.


Yes, that was what I referred to with over/underrated. But I didn't have that impression here. 

Perhaps it's just that Sx is a bit louder in the way it self-discloses and seeks attention. Like Warhol said 'If you got it, flaunt it!' And maybe much of the response is from Sx too, making the attention it gets drive up to glamorous proportions, to others. 

Anyway, I think you meant it positively, but with apologetic I mean defensive, like saying 'Many women are very strong'. It still sort of confirms the prejudice that women are weak as a standard. And you are using Sx as a norm. That would be like judging women based on typically male qualities, where you could also differentiate and look at typically female qualities and value those (and both) from a more general or holistic point of view.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

mimesis said:


> Yes, that was what I referred to with over/underrated. But I didn't have that impression here.
> 
> Perhaps it's just that Sx is a bit louder in the way it self-discloses and seeks attention. Like Warhol said 'If you got it, flaunt it!' And maybe much of the response is from Sx too, making the attention it gets drive up to glamorous proportions, to others.
> 
> Anyway, I think you meant it positively, but with apologetic I mean defensive, like saying 'Many women are very strong'. It still sort of confirms the prejudice that women are weak as a standard. And you are using Sx as a norm. That would be like judging women based on typically male qualities, where you could also differentiate and look at typically female qualities and value those (and both) from a more general or holistic point of view.


Ok, I see, thanks for clarifying. Yeah I guess I noticed that as a bit of a trend, but it probably does somewhat reflect my bias towards sx, and my tendency to pay more attention when people are talking about it. And yeah, I understand what you mean about using sx as a norm, that also probably reflects my bias. I was being referential back to people of sx instinct, guilty as charged.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Father of Dragons said:


> I think I get what you're saying, but you're misinterpreting the concept of under/overrating types as hierarchical in spirit. My understanding is that we are talking about appearances, the _impression_ that the community tends to have.* And, in general the PerC community tends to over rate sx and under rate so and sp. Partly because of misunderstandings of what they really are*. I definitely didn't mean to sound apologetic though; perhaps I didn't word it in the best way.


What evidence have you seen that one variant is revered over the others?

How does the perC community perceive the different instinctual variants, and what "are" the variants actually, since the forum as a whole has misunderstood them allegedly? 

Where did you learn about the instinctual variants? / Another forum?

What is your own stacking?


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Promethea said:


> What evidence have you seen that one variant is revered over the others?
> 
> How does the perC community perceive the different instinctual variants, and what "are" the variants actually, since the forum as a whole has misunderstood them allegedly?
> 
> ...



Hold the phone, I wasn't trying to make a thesis statement, I don't feel I need evidence to back up a simple observation. It's just that over the past year or so I've noticed a lot of posts and threads which tend to glorify the sx instinct as somehow being the most exciting or interesting variant. As I mentioned afterwards, my noticing this tendency might have something to do with my seeking of info on sx, as I currently perceive myself as sx-dominant.

And by the "perC community", I didn't mean the forum as a whole necessarily, but more a lot of users, especially people new to the variants. I know there are tons of people around here with better understandings of the instincts than myself, and the "The resource" thread is one I find myself constantly coming back to.

As for my other sources, I tend to look all over... the ocean moonshine descriptions, stackemup, the instinct ranges on the16types, the enneagram institute, etc. I find myself cross-referencing more than anything, as each source tends to have a bit of a unique spin on things.

And for myself, I am leaning towards sx/so, although I am still juggling the possibilities of being maybe sx/sp or so/sx. I'm finding it more difficult than even tri-type to figure out. 

I'm not sure if you perceived my post as an attack on perC in general? Or, perhaps you thought I was trying to cast myself as superior, as an expert on the instincts? I can assure you I was doing neither of those things; perC seems to me one of the most congenial and open-minded of the type theory forums out there... I've never had the desire to join any other forum as of yet. I was just expressing a casual observation, I'm honestly a little surprised it prompted you to interrogate me.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Father of Dragons said:


> *Hold the phone*, I wasn't trying to make a thesis statement, I don't feel I need evidence to back up a simple observation. It's just that over the past year or so I've noticed a lot of posts and threads which tend to glorify the sx instinct as somehow being the most exciting or interesting variant. As I mentioned afterwards, my noticing this tendency might have something to do with my seeking of info on sx, as I currently perceive myself as sx-dominant.
> 
> And by the "perC community", I didn't mean the forum as a whole necessarily, but more a lot of users, especially people new to the variants. I know there are tons of people around here with better understandings of the instincts than myself, and the "The resource" thread is one I find myself constantly coming back to.
> 
> ...


Acknowledged - but frankly I'm not interested in engaging you more if you're going to get this defensive and touchy over some very neutrally worded questions. 

Thanks.


----------



## Father of Dragons (May 7, 2012)

Promethea said:


> Acknowledged - but frankly I'm not interested in engaging you more if you're going to get this defensive and touchy over some very neutrally worded questions.
> 
> Thanks.


I'm sorry to hear that. But, the way you chained your questions together seemed quite aggressive to me. From my point of view, such an unexplained line of questions came across as you calling me out, as opposed to a friendly discussion. Perhaps I misunderstood, as I haven't crossed paths with you much on here.


----------



## Cantarella (Sep 3, 2010)

Overrated: 5s, 7s
Underrated: 3s!!!!


----------

