# Enneagram type 4in Socionics



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Harmony seems related to NeFi in Socionics more than NiFe like MBTIers say. I think people's MBTI understanding of Fi vs. Fe colors their Enneagram views.


It depends on how you apply the word harmony. I could see it applied as quite a range of functions.

I don't see the use of trying to correlate cognition with enneagram. I've only seen it used to stereotype and cause problems.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

ColdWindsRising said:


> Listen, I agree that they are not the same thing and that all combinations are possible. There's no point in trying to convince me of that.
> That doesn't mean that some combinations can't be more frequent than others.
> Are you guys saying that all combinations are as frequent? Or that it's uninteresting to study the correlation?


Some combinations indeed may be more frequent than others.

However, there is no way to evaluate these frequencies, because the two systems *fundamentally measure different things*. If you try and correlate the meaning of "self-absorption" in an Fi sense to "self-absorption" in a 4 sense... well, you can't, because they mean entirely different things in the two contexts.

When you can't accurately evaluate something there's no point in making assumptions that may well be invalid logical shortcuts. Consider perhaps that the _reason _so many 4s type as NF (or vice versa) in the first place can be because they incorrectly correlate the concepts of sentimentality, melancholy, emotionality, self-absorption, and so on, in the two systems.


----------



## FoggyEyes (Jan 14, 2017)

4 is mainly introspective and feeling oriented, so... 4 = F. Sorry if this bothered anyone's Fi-lings. Because I have yet to meet an SLE or SLI or LSE e4... That said, it could work for their tritype.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

FoggyEyes said:


> 4 is mainly introspective and feeling oriented, so... 4 = F.


Except F in Socionics is about ethics, not feelings, and enneagram is about fears.

Being a systematic person doesn't preclude a strong thinking type from fearing insignificance.


----------



## FoggyEyes (Jan 14, 2017)

Fried Eggz said:


> FoggyEyes said:
> 
> 
> > 4 is mainly introspective and feeling oriented, so... 4 = F.
> ...


I yet have to understand how this site works but as far as I get it, F is not about ethics per se, anyone has got ethics. 
Enneagram is not about fear either but rather about fixation and self understanding (growth).


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

FoggyEyes said:


> I yet have to understand how this site works but as far as I get it, F is not about ethics per se, anyone has got ethics.


Everyone has got feelings too.

Feeling in Socionics is most commonly called ethics. Thinking is called logic. These are the basics of Socionics. If you deny them, you're not using Socionics at all.



FoggyEyes said:


> Enneagram is not about fear either but rather about fixation and self understanding (growth).


Read about any enneagram type, and you'll find references to the core fears, which is the foundation of enneagram.


----------



## FoggyEyes (Jan 14, 2017)

Fried Eggz said:


> Everyone has got feelings too.
> 
> Feeling in Socionics is most commonly called ethics. Thinking is called logic. These are the basics of Socionics. If you deny them, you're not using Socionics at all.


That's not what I meant. I am familiar with Socionics' basic premises. Ethics englobes something else than just feelings, but that's not the point, what I basically wanted to say was the following : introverts and especially ethical types tend to self doubt and self loathe a lot. It fits into the 4 spectrum. Anyone can doubt of course but logical types seem to have different concerns in this matter (I go from "the Dual Nature..." by Aushra).



> Read about any enneagram type, and you'll find references to the core fears, which is the foundation of enneagram.


I kindly thank you for the tip. Fear is a slightly reductive term and I would rather connect it to the mental triad.
If I read any source I will also find about the core motivations. And personal growth too to be able to detach oneself from the fixation.

Listen, I am not here to argue with you about any specific wording or anything else. But based on the global synthesis between material I've read and what can be observed "in the field" I tend to think that certain enneagram and socionics overlappings are less possible.


----------



## ColdWindsRising (Feb 11, 2016)

FoggyEyes said:


> I yet have to understand how this site works but as far as I get it, F is not about ethics per se, anyone has got ethics.
> Enneagram is not about fear either but rather about fixation and self understanding (growth).


Thanks for your response! It does seem that Fours are more often Feelers than Thinkers (though I have seen ILIs or LIIs).

But I disagree with these last two statements.
I do believe Socionics F is about ethics. In case of Fi, ethics are based on personal values, and in case of Fe, ethics are based on what is needed in the group. (Correct me if anyone disagrees.) I have the impression it's more about emotion than ethics in MBTI, but I would be as sure as about Socionics.

And Enneagram is definitely about fears. And about motivations, the counterpart of fear. For example type Four is about the fear of being insignificant (or, about the motivation of being significant). In that way, 'being significant' becomes a fixation.
Self-understanding and ultimately growth are goals of the Enneagram, fears and motivations are the basis on which the system is built.


----------



## ColdWindsRising (Feb 11, 2016)

@FoggyEyes
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with your last post. Some thoughts I had:
- At first sight, it would seem true that Feelers are more prone to self-loathing, but I frankly don't know if that's true. Because the Feeling elements are weaker for thinkers, they might have more trouble handling them (hope I'm not offending anyone). I'm think of ILIs for example.
- I do think every type has fears. It's negative term, but compensated by the positive aspect motivation. The two of them work together. I don't think you can take the aspect of 'fears' away. As for the mental triad, I wouldn't really call it 'fear' ... 'anxiety' is closer ... but the mental triad is the one I find hardest to grasp.
- I would really say 'less likely' instead of 'less possible', but I think we mean the same things here.
I see that you didn't want to discuss too much about specific wordings, so I hope you will forgive me.


----------



## FoggyEyes (Jan 14, 2017)

@ColdWindsRising

The fear fashion is just one of the modern (and Western) interpretations. If you look into Gurdjieff's work, it's not something you will grasp immediately, you just underguess rather. The same with Almaas, he's got a different approach.

Anyway I like this overview:








I think what you call fear is summarised by the loss of the virtue here. So maybe it's more accurate.

ILIs don't do it in the same way. I could go on forever here but basically, being negativist and having Fi Hidden Agenda makes them a real ticking bomb. Sorry ILIs.


----------



## Starflakes (Sep 13, 2009)

There's definitely correlations but it's erroneous to say that certain types in one system can't be certain types in the other system.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

FoggyEyes said:


> That's not what I meant. I am familiar with Socionics' basic premises. Ethics englobes something else than just feelings, but that's not the point, what I basically wanted to say was the following : introverts and especially ethical types tend to self doubt and self loathe a lot. It fits into the 4 spectrum. Anyone can doubt of course but logical types seem to have different concerns in this matter (I go from "the Dual Nature..." by Aushra).


Sure enough anybody can self doubt and it's a bad idea to mingle typing systems this way, since people can very well get mistyped due to broad generalizations like this in one system or both of them. If logical types have different concerns and doubt self differently from the ethical ones, it doesn't mean that they don't doubt or loath self.


----------



## FoggyEyes (Jan 14, 2017)

Starflakes said:


> There's definitely correlations but it's erroneous to say that certain types in one system can't be certain types in the other system.





To_august said:


> Sure enough anybody can self doubt and it's a bad idea to mingle typing systems this way, since people can very well get mistyped due to broad generalizations like this in one system or both of them. If logical types have different concerns and doubt self differently from the ethical ones, it doesn't mean that they don't doubt or loath self.


My observations fit within my personal system of understanding of those correlations. The mistyping theme will always be all over the place but mostly because people type their human circle based on their own (sometimes limited) knowledge and after all those people are not even envolved. 
An LSE e4 seems off to me, but being Fi seeking and e1 it can make sense to go to the disintegration point and appear as something else aka e4. But then again, whatever I will say, there can always be an exception which does not necessarily create the rule.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

I think Enneagram Type 4 is mainly associated with Fe, which is about self-expression and all that. But that doesn't mean that other E4 types are impossible.


----------



## ShuttleRun (Jan 5, 2017)

FoggyEyes said:


> 4 is mainly introspective and feeling oriented, so... 4 = F. Sorry if this bothered anyone's Fi-lings. Because I have yet to meet an SLE or SLI or LSE e4... That said, it could work for their tritype.


Well actually, Madonna could be a 4 SLE... or maybe 3w4.

From her song "Love Tried To Welcome Me", sounds kind of like a 4:

And I must confess that I am usually drawn to sadness
And loneliness has never been a stranger to me, but

Love tried to welcome me
But my soul drew back
Guilty of lust and sin
Love tried to take me in


----------



## FoggyEyes (Jan 14, 2017)

ShuttleRun said:


> Well actually, Madonna could be a 4 SLE... or maybe 3w4.
> 
> From her song "Love Tried To Welcome Me", sounds kind of like a 4:
> 
> ...


Madonna is an obvious 3w4. Tritype 378, sx/so


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Enneagram is a problematic topic.
Trying to link it to Jungian types as a sort of correlation is even more problematic.
It is like putting your 2 + 2 = 5 into an equation.
2 + 2 = 5 = x
y = x + z
No matter what you do y will be just as wrong as x.

There are many reasons for this, but the main problem is the idea of a fixation.
Where you essentially set yourself up for creating an identity out of your problem.
I'm a type X and hence I have these issues.
Let me go around with my confirmation bias to detect all the issues in my life that correspond to that.
Then create even more of it, because that is how I am, as I'm a type X.
It happens with MBTI stereotypes also, but at least the MBTI is an idealized image of health.
Making you strive towards balance.
The enneagram is mostly presented as, this is how you are fucked up, it is a permanently fixated state.
Good luck with that.


----------



## ColdWindsRising (Feb 11, 2016)

Strontphite said:


> Enneagram is a problematic topic.
> Trying to link it to Jungian types as a sort of correlation is even more problematic.
> It is like putting your 2 + 2 = 5 into an equation.
> 2 + 2 = 5 = x
> ...


Er, I'm not sure I understand what you mean with this. It took me a second read to understand that your main point was to criticise Enneagram.
But I thoroughly disagree. Of all typologies, Enneagram is most focused on growth. It puts the most emphasis on what is bad about a type, but also what potential that type has. It makes a distinction between how healthy, average and unhealthy Fours for example interact. For example, the levels of healths as described in the Enneagram Institute. I have not seen MBTI or Socionics make such nuances. And only telling about types when there healthy is not very useful for growth for unhealthy types. If any typology makes you strive towards balance, it's Enneagram in my opinion. 
Like the other typologies, Enneagram has stereotypes. I think you are thinking of them when you say 'create more'. It's also possible to handle Enneagram in a healthy way, and see the types (and the fears/motivations on which the system is built) as they are without trying to make everyone fit into the stereotypes.

Also, a lot of reaction has come from my use of the word 'correlation'. I wasn't really asking for a narrowly fitting rule, e.g. if you have that Enneagramtype, you must have that Socionics-type, I simply wanted some impressions which combinations are more frequent. So maybe that was an unfortunate choice of words ...

EDIT: Oh, and ILI and 9 is cool combination.


----------



## Bash (Nov 19, 2014)

ShuttleRun said:


> Well actually, Madonna could be a 4 SLE... or maybe 3w4.
> 
> From her song "Love Tried To Welcome Me", sounds kind of like a 4:
> 
> ...


That really doesn't sound like Fi polr, though.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

ColdWindsRising said:


> Er, I'm not sure I understand what you mean with this. It took me a second read to understand that your main point was to criticise Enneagram.


Glad you picked up on that.



> But I thoroughly disagree. Of all typologies, Enneagram is most focused on growth. It puts the most emphasis on what is bad about a type, but also what potential that type has. It makes a distinction between how healthy, average and unhealthy Fours for example interact. For example, the levels of healths as described in the Enneagram Institute. I have not seen MBTI or Socionics make such nuances. And only telling about types when there healthy is not very useful for growth for unhealthy types. If any typology makes you strive towards balance, it's Enneagram in my opinion.


It is good that you state why you believe in the system.
It makes it so much easier to demonstrate why i don't believe in it.

Firstly the health levels are a great addition.
It really points to something important.
What that is in my opinion is that each "type" is a defence mechanism.
The health levels are an indication of how much you have gotten trapped in any one of the 9 mechanisms.
The moment you identify with a type you identify with a defence mechanism.
That is where your problems start and where the deterioration begins.
If you derive your sense of identity from a defence mechanism,
you cannot lower the defence when the condition that raised the defence is over.
You will most likely bolster the defence instead of taking it away.
This is problematic as defence mechanisms warp our view of the world.
Hence by identifying and bolstering the defence you will soon start to lose your grip on reality.



> Like the other typologies, Enneagram has stereotypes. I think you are thinking of them when you say 'create more'. It's also possible to handle Enneagram in a healthy way, and see the types (and the fears/motivations on which the system is built) as they are without trying to make everyone fit into the stereotypes.


I agree that there are healthy ways to approach it.
Unfortunatly most people who do approach it are not able to do that.
It is a quite clear pattern in my view.



> Also, a lot of reaction has come from my use of the word 'correlation'. I wasn't really asking for a narrowly fitting rule, e.g. if you have that Enneagramtype, you must have that Socionics-type, I simply wanted some impressions which combinations are more frequent. So maybe that was an unfortunate choice of words ...


I understand what you wanted.
I'm sure there are tons of ideas on what defences are more common in different types.
But I've yet to see anything compiled on it that doesn't ultimately condense down to a poorly conducted survey.
If we imagine that at least a sizeable number of the sample is ill informed on the subject you might as well throw a dice.



> EDIT: Oh, and ILI and 9 is cool combination.


I should really remove my 9 label, just been too lazy


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> I believe it is clearer than people make it seem. Otherwise you're mistyped in MBTI. Why do the functions not translate? At a fundamental level, an ISFJ is an SEI.


I agree, as MBTI and Socionics just show different sides of the functions. Though I prefer the latter as it's better structured and takes more notes from Jung than MBTI. Following your comment I type as INTJ and ILI and I clearly get along with SPs, while extroverted SJs are annoying at times. ESFJ/ESE is specially bad there lol


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

TheHuman said:


> I've come acroos many people who type as one thing in MBTI and a bit different in socionics and they're quite well educated on this. Most people who have studied these two years will tell you that the types do not transtale literally and the functions are different. Let's look at Si in MBTI and Si in socionics: Si in MBTI - past, memories, detail, tradition, history, body, physical security, health.
> Si in socionics: pleasant sensations, comfort, body, health, food, art, aesthetics, beauty, sensation, care.
> Si in MBTI is more past orriented, it relates the current situation to past memories and acts based on past experiences. Si in socionics does not do that but is rather simply orriented on physical sensations and how they relate to one's body. You might say it's similar but the differences are obvious.
> Other examples: Fi in socionics and Fi in MBTI. Fi in MBTI is about inner feeling, emotion, like/dislike, ideal, perfection, good, evil.
> Fi in socionics is about relationships, distance between two people, how much you relate to others, morality, ethical rules, principels.


 Fi in both systems is about introverted ethics, which ties into connection, principles, and morality, as well as ideals, likes/dislikes, perfection, good vs. evil, and emotion. 

For introverted sensing, based on my experience, current situations are compared to the past only because there is a strong registry of sensations. Thus, my sensations experienced in this moment will be relative to my sensations in every other moment. Does that make sense? So while the difference is there, it really is still the same function. 

I think it's more important that the types are described differently in both systems. Some types more radically than others (SEI and ISFJ show very different sides, and I'd argue the SEI profile is more for an ISFJ in their private and internal lives rather than how they appear to the outside world). There is room for interpretation and I am fine with anyone self-identifying themselves the way they want. I do wonder if their findings are due to inconsistency or illegitimate qualifications. And that also does not mean there is not a strong correlation with MBTI and socionics types. Essentially, extraverts stay the same and introverts change in their judging/perceiving.

A misconception I see a lot for why socionics =/= MBTI at all is the order of the functions, but even that is actually the same in both systems, at least theoretically. Just in socionics they list all 8 functions and 2 of the shadow functions in the top 4. So similar functions, same order, just different descriptions that result. A simple rearranging gets you identical to the MBTI order and the meaning of the ordering systems is the same at the end of the day


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> Fi in both systems is about introverted ethics, which ties into connection, principles, and morality, as well as ideals, likes/dislikes, perfection, good vs. evil, and emotion.
> 
> For introverted sensing, based on my experience, current situations are compared to the past only because there is a strong registry of sensations. Thus, my sensations experienced in this moment will be relative to my sensations in every other moment. Does that make sense? So while the difference is there, it really is still the same function.
> 
> ...


If typology is putting together a puzzle, then MBTI is the corner and edge pieces, and Socionics is all of the MBTI pieces and a bunch of the inner pieces. Enneagram would be some of the center pieces at the very middle. Now if only we could find all the pieces we are missing....


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> Fi in both systems is about introverted ethics, which ties into connection, principles, and morality, as well as ideals, likes/dislikes, perfection, good vs. evil, and emotion.
> 
> For introverted sensing, based on my experience, current situations are compared to the past only because there is a strong registry of sensations. Thus, my sensations experienced in this moment will be relative to my sensations in every other moment. Does that make sense? So while the difference is there, it really is still the same function.
> 
> ...


Si is interesting in that regard because if we take something like taste, we find that they do compare a lot to past foods of similar style and quality. They create analogies between how there's a tinge of lemon compared to the more sweet taste of strawberry or something like that. If you go listen to a wine taster it becomes very evident how much they draw the current experience based on what they have tasted in the past.

This is why Jung claims all introverted functions operate based on archetypes so it builds an archetypal idea based on past experiences that becomes an ideal or blueprint everything else is compared to. Socionics entirely overlooks this aspect unfortunately.


----------



## lunallee (Apr 17, 2020)

I’m an EII enneagram 4, but I think 4 core is honestly more likely to be on the se-ni axis, just because 4s on the surface are very cold and reserved. I’ve known more SEE and ESIs to be fours in which they appear much like this, and it correlates more with being a four. Also IEIs>EIIs, I’m guessing EIEs can be four, but I’m not sure because I haven’t met one yet. I don’t really come off like this, I am quiet and shy but I’m more warm and friendly, due to my ne.
Furthermore “being 
pretty selfish, with the envy passion” is more se 
and 
the concepts of sentimentality, melancholy, emotionality, self-absorption, and so on, which is why I think 4s are more se and Ni, because there comes a lot of reactivity and emotional expressiveness with being a 4. This is not as correlated with low se. I also never got the idea of why 4 has to be correlated with fi, I agree fours are more emotional associated with F types, but in some ways this constant emotional expressiveness ties to Beta nfs.


----------

