INTps enneagram type 5w4?

[Hitta]

Why do INTp's think they are 5w4? That is the most stupid and profound thing I've ever heard.

[Expat]

How so?

[Hitta]

Well INTps aren't typically the people that are socially anxious and theoretical scientist. They are the people that want to be different. 5w4 for INTp is just a hard idea to grasp.

[Expat]

I think it's a very big misinterpretation of INTp's motives to say that "they want to be different".

The correct interpretation is that they are oblivious to, or unconcerned with, whether they are different from others or not.

[Hitta]

opps i misworded that... i mean that 5w4s want to be different.... INTps don't

[Hitta]

bottom line is i don't think that 5w4 sounds like an INTp because of the fact that INTps normally do not inspire to be original, nor do they inspire to be theoretical scientists. I think that 5w4s are mostly INTjs, especially Ne INTjs.

[KSpin]

What an amusing topic.

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/TypeFive.asp

[Jarno]

Well INTps aren't typically the people that are socially anxious and theoretical scientist.

uhhh are we talking about the same INTP's ?

This is probably a great short description of an INTP.

I would say INTP's can be 5w4 (=ILI intuitive subtype) or 5w6 (= ILI logical subtype)

[Hitta]

INTjs are the typical theoretical scientist/ thinkers. I just don't agree that INTps are 5w4. I think that the INTps that think they are 5w4 are really INTj.

[KSpin]

INTps are some of the most theoretical thinkers you'll find, they're also some of the most forgetful/disorganised ones you'll find aswell. In fact, I don't often work too well in practice, most of my best work is done on paper or in theory.

INTjs are the more inventive type, apparently, whereas INTps are the ones able to make generalisations and see trends in nature. Sometimes us INTps are called "The Critic" type, too. Which would be exactly what 5w4 is.

[Hitta]

Why would you consider 5w4 to be a critic? 5w4 is about intuitive thinking on logical systems.

[Hitta]

Five with four-wing

Average 5/4 is the prototype personality for research scientists.
Analytical and detached from their emotions, but passionate about beauty
and truth, they want to find the ultimate, simple explanation for
everything. Their intellectual fiveness makes them likely to engage in
long, professorial monologues, while their four-wing gives them a shy
self-consciousness. Unlike the more depressive 4/5, they are likely to have
a generally optimistic view, although they can get depressed if they become
overwhelmed by the world's demands. 5/4s are usually less interested in
social interactions than the more other-dependent 5/6.

Balanced 5/4 is more able to participate in life. When the fiveish desire
to withdraw and sort things out is no longer compulsive, then the
consciously chosen time alone becomes a tool for understanding the world,
rather than an entrapping habit. The fourish passion for beauty emerges as
the conscious result of harnessing the emotions rather than being their
slave. Healthy 5/4s begin to deeply understand the simple, elegant way that
the awesome complexity of the world emerges from fundamental principles.
They find great joy in watching and learning.

When the perception of five and the passion of four are augmented by
eight's power and leadership, plus one's intuitive wisdom, clear
comprehensions can be transmitted to others. Very balanced 5/4s can be
tremendously creative teachers of How The World Works, who explain things
with clean, elegant sentences. Yet for all its simple clarity, their
teaching carries with it a profound appreciation for the subtle beauty of
Creation. (Come with me on a journey of discovery. Let's look together at
the awsome profundity of Nature and Consciousness.)

Unbalanced 5/4 gets lost in the details. The compulsive analysis of five
can lead to elaborate pseudo-logical constructions designed to explain
everything. The four-wing's emotionality adds a flavor of dramatic
hopelessness. Others Simply Do Not Understand. No one could understand. So
5/4 retreats to a place of safety, hoping to escape from view, continuing
to uncover the truth. There is little to no social involvement.

In the extreme, the panic and scattered mania of seven combine with twoish
self-congratulatory hysteria. In a seeming reversal, 5/4 can come back into
the world, awkward and excitable, ready to bolt but equally ready to
passionately defend a bizarre, baroque fantasy world. As inner tension
builds, schizoid withdrawal from reality becomes more and more likely. The
end result is a kind of terrified fugue, completely cut off from reality.
The only escape from the constant overwhelming chaos is inward.

5/4 is generally not much into appearance. Reasonable, ordinary clothing,
not too bold. Comfort is quite important. Thick glasses are common Ñ maybe
a result of a great deal of careful examination of tiny objects during
childhood? There is often a rumpled, dissheveled quality. The exceptions
are those well-dressed 5/4's whose four-wings impel them towards an
aesthetically appealing appearance. Also, note that sometimes unhealthy
5/4s can dress and act in sevenishly colorful ways.

Some 5/4s find work that combines intellect and aesthetics. Cosmologists,
futurists, science fiction authors. Others dive deeply into some highly
specialized discipline, becoming computer programmers, nuclear physicists,
theoretical scientists, molecular biologists, surface scientists, or any of
a thousand other highly technical jobs. There are 5/4 science reporters,
poets, painters, and photographers. Of course, 5/4s can also be found doing
many other kinds of work.

[KSpin]

Why would you consider 5w4 to be a critic? 5w4 is about intuitive thinking on logical systems.

"Healthy 5/4s begin to deeply understand the simple, elegant way that
the awesome complexity of the world emerges from fundamental principles.
They find great joy in watching and learning."

"Very balanced 5/4s can be
tremendously creative teachers of How The World Works, who explain things
with clean, elegant sentences."*

"Unbalanced 5/4 gets lost in the details. The compulsive analysis of five
can lead to elaborate pseudo-logical constructions designed to explain
everything."

These are not my words, but I believe you will find that they fit very well with the description of the INTp/ILI. AKA. The Observer/Critic.

[Hitta]

that doesn't sound INTp like

[Mea]

that doesn't sound INTp like

Then what does it sound like to you?

[Hitta]

sounds like Ne INTj or ENTp

[Jarno]

Why would you consider 5w4 to be a critic? 5w4 is about intuitive thinking on logical systems.

intuitive and logic is what the INTP is made of.


I wonder what enneagram type do you think an INTP is?

[Jarno]

Why do INTp's think they are 5w4? That is the most stupid and profound thing I've ever heard.

That tells me something about your level of knowledge and interpretation.

[Expat]

My personal interpretation is that 5s don't really "exist" as an unified type -- Enneagram 5 is a direct descendant of Jung's Introverted Thinking type description, which imo was based on his observations of introverts who were thinkers, so both INTps and INTjs, probably a few others in the mix.

[Hitta]

INTp is not INTP from MBTI. The descriptions are very different... each rely on different functions. Te is business logic. Ni is predicative intuition. INTps aren't the theoretical scientists of the world. I'm not saying that they aren't good at theory, but INTjs are more theoretical when it comes to new concepts and ideas.

[Jarno]

Enneagram != Socionics, so who cares what they think they are? It's not like there's a better place to put them anyway.

I would even go further by saying that enneagram is a sort of cosmopolitan magazine typology.

But nonetheless, when somebody makes such a bold statement as if it were ridiculous to even consider an INTP to be a Five, begs it for a discussion.

On topic: INTJ's are indeed more theoretical and scientific then INTP's who follow up on a second place. Which in my opinion is still enough to call them a Five instead of something else.

[Hitta]

i didn't say they aren't 5s, i just said that they aren't 5w4s.

[Jarno]

[KSpin]

i didn't say they aren't 5s, i just said that they aren't 5w4s.

5w4 AKA. The Iconoclast... sigh.

[posablethumb]

I think he meant 5w6 would be fore INTps

[BLauritson]

I consider myself to be a Socionics INTp and an Enneagramme 5w4, based on more things than I can be bothered to count. Now, the question is, do I trust my own observations with lots of pieces that fit together, or do I believe this random statement with very little reasoning behind it? Hmm.. tough one, that.

[Jarno]

I think he meant 5w6 would be fore INTps

yes the logical subtype.

for intuitive subtype I would prefer 5w4

not that enneagram is that accurate compatible...

[posablethumb]

Well yeah I think enneagram can be traced to a specific type imo, since enneagram seem to describe a lot of socionics types taking wings into account, because I think types specifically use or value for lack of a better word, different parts of their brains. As in I think functions themselves correlate to different parts of the brain, or maybe even the spinal cord - which could be Si. Or parts of the brain that relate to possibly subconscious tensing of the muscles would be Se, or giving energy to do random tasks. I've found many possible connections, but I am not entirely sure they can be connected just yet. I have also found this article on mirror neurons that seem to express Fe's tendencies. As for 6, I have found descriptions of it relating to Fi.. Which I could be completely wrong since some points in different enneatype descriptions seem to fit for same* ppl(especially me, I can't find one enneatype that I can't relate to in some way, I'm enneatype 9 tho)..

[Jonathan]

This thread is really just the same old argument that has gone on this thread for over a year, in a different guise. It actually has nothing to do with the enneagram. The point that Hitta seems to be making is that going from some typical IM element definitions, quadra descriptions, and various things that have been said about the functions such as associating Ti with understanding or theory in general, Ne with intellectual creativity, Ni with timelines and timeliness, and Te with being business-oriented, then it would seem that all of your theoretical, intellectual types of people must be Alpha, and INTps would be at most interested in or good at the "applied" sciences such as engineering, or business, and that INTps are against new ideas...and all that stuff.

However, there are lots of people who fit the Socionics conception of ILI quite well who are theoretically oriented, interested in the pure sciences, creative, innovative, and so forth.

It's not exactly Hugo's/Hitta's/etc.'s fault (or my fault, or Phaedrus's fault) to keep wanting to come back to the apparent contradictions within Socionics, with the biggest "problems" apparently residing in distinguishing ILI from its neighbor types. After all, it all comes from stuff that has been written by various Socionists

However, somehow the discussion always seems to start at square one. Rick has pointed out a few things that may help...first of all, that Ti is not the same as theory, exactly. ...also, that Ni is not the same as being on time or thinking about what time it is.

The key, I think, is to come to a more accurate understanding of the IM elements, and to understand how they work in different positions within model A, and try to clean out some of the "****" of all the stuff that gets said. After all that one, one may still find contradictions and paradoxes, but at least the level of the discussion will be raised.

[Hitta]

Ne is a function of innovation, an Iconoclast so to speak. Ni is not. Ni is more of a forecasting function. Its about predicting the future.

[Ms. Kensington]

i am a 5w4.

[Logos]

Ne is a function of innovation, an Iconoclast so to speak. Ni is not. Ni is more of a forecasting function. Its about predicting the future.

Ne is a function of potential, while there may be innovation in the potential of objects and events, there by no means is it necessary. Ni can also be a function of innovation, as it is the function more capable of traversing the system and seeing ahead of the current potential but by a subjective future value. Ne is more of a function of generalization rather than specialization that tries to simplify all that it encounters into base metaphoric parts which make it easier to strip the object into its respective system of either or .

[Jonathan]

Ne is a function of innovation, an Iconoclast so to speak. Ni is not. Ni is more of a forecasting function. Its about predicting the future.

This is a real problem within Socionics. There is a lot you can draw from that says stuff like Ni = forecasting the future; Ne = innovating, etc.
These are presumed applications of the functions. Actually, you can also make predictions about the future using Ti or other functions. And you could even be innovative with Si...think of an artist who paints how he/she experiences things so much as to create something very individual and unique.

There are different ways of thinking of the IM elements that will lead to different conclusions, different versions of Socionics. There are also, of course, different ideas of how these are used...e.g., the idea that one focuses exclusively on the ego block, or that the ego block functions only form a general structure within which one actually uses a lot more functions. (And of course then there are also Tcaud-like theories.)

[Jonathan]

By the way, concerning the "Ni=predicting the future" thing. I've gotten together with a lot of ILIs and IEIs. And one things that hardly ever really comes up in the conversation is predicting the future. From some stuff written in Socionics, you'd think that when ILIs and IEIs get together for lunch, the conversation will be all about what's going to happen next year, what will happen 20 years from now, what's going to happen to the stocks tomorrow, who's going to win the election, etc.

Actually, the conversation is almost never about that. IEIs often like to talk about some personal problems or spirituality or art or stuff about their lives. ILIs often like to debate stuff. The topic of what's going to happen in the future almost never comes up.

[Expat]

And you could even be innovative with Si...think of an artist who paints how he/she experiences things so much as to create something very individual and unique.

I'd say that's already using together with and .

You really have to separate people from the functions. People are complicated and multi-dimensional, functions are simpler. So the artist may be dominant but it doesn't mean that he won't use other functions together with it.

[Logos]

By the way, concerning the "Ni=predicting the future" thing. I've gotten together with a lot of ILIs and IEIs. And one things that hardly ever really comes up in the conversation is predicting the future. From some stuff written in Socionics, you'd think that when ILIs and IEIs get together for lunch, the conversation will be all about what's going to happen next year, what will happen 20 years from now, what's going to happen to the stocks tomorrow, who's going to win the election, etc.

Actually, the conversation is almost never about that. IEIs often like to talk about some personal problems or spirituality or art or stuff about their lives. ILIs often like to debate stuff. The topic of what's going to happen in the future almost never comes up.

I think that people forget that is not just a forward facing function, but also a function of the past. So it is not so much about predicting the future, as it is using experience and the past to make connections with external modes or systems.

[Jonathan]

And you could even be innovative with Si...think of an artist who paints how he/she experiences things so much as to create something very individual and unique.

I'd say that's already using together with and .

Probably true. It's most likely to be true in the case of a highly "innovative" Si artist. But my point was simply that even just focusing on one's own sensory experience will reveal unique things. It's hard to separate out the influence of other functions, of course. But it's the tendency of many people to confuse the IM elements with some expected application of them that I tend to have trouble with.

You really have to separate people from the functions. People are complicated and multi-dimensional, functions are simpler. So the artist may be dominant but it doesn't mean that he won't use other functions together with it.

That's another reason why Hitta's view that ILIs couldn't be 5w4 is wrong.

[Jarno]

I think that people forget that is not just a forward facing function, but also a function of the past. So it is not so much about predicting the future, as it is using experience and the past to make connections with external modes or systems.

Yep. that's very true.

[Hitta]

yea but have you ever read the description of a 5w4.... it doesn't sound like INTps... INTps are creative indead... ill agree with that... but 5w4 doesn't fit INTps.

[Jonathan]

yea but have you ever read the description of a 5w4.... it doesn't sound like INTps... INTps are creative indead... ill agree with that... but 5w4 doesn't fit INTps.

It says Fives are investigators, open-minded, seeking the truth and wanting to be competent. That sounds like INTps.
It says Fours are creative, artistic, emotionally sensitive, romantic. That sounds like INFps.
So an INTp who is somewhat close to INFp (maybe an Ni subtype, for example) might fit 5w4.

But the thing with the Enneagram is that it seems to be just a bunch of descriptions, not really a complete structural theory. There are lots of ways of interpreting it. I wouldn't necessary take it too seriously.