I'm referring one more time to this webpage : http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/articles/NArtTina.asp
It resembles this :
Let's suppose that :
- there's a function : brain_activity(type), which measures the overall brain activity for each type.
- each minus sign (low) scores 1, each equal sign (moderate) scores 2, and each plus sign (high) scores 3.
Low brain activity : E4, E8, E9
1 (2 + 1 + 2) = 5
2 (3 + 2 + 2) = 7
3 (2 + 2 + 3) = 7
4 (1 + 2 + 1) = 4
5 (2 + 3 + 1) = 6
6 (1 + 3 + 2) = 6
7 (3 + 3 + 3) = 9
8 (1 + 1 + 3) = 4
9 (3 + 1 + 1) = 4
Moderate brain activity : E1, E5, E6
High brain activity : E2, E3, E7
Three homogenous groups. You can draw them like that :
This renders a classical definition of E/I dichotomy. Yes. It may be a mistake, but it is NOT a joke.
Short description of brain activity groups :
WARNING: these descriptions may appear harsh or shocking to sensitive people.
[align=left:d3e3c5c748]Low brain activity types are pretty passive, and may feel or like they are missing everything to appear socially "ok", and tend to rely mostly on some skill to have a correct social life or to be productive : on mental skills (E4), physical skills (E8) or social skills (E9).
Moderate brain activity types are somewhat cool and balanced, and productive, but they seem to lack an essential skill to appear socially "ok" : mental skills (E1), physical skills (E5) or social skills (E6).
High brain activity types give some positive feeling, are mostly good company, and are like they like people. These types are the most socially active and productive, and are the most socially image-giving. They are models. But they have to master some skill they tend to use excessively (and thus, in an egocentric or antisocial manner) to be socially "ok" : mental skills (E3), physical skills (E7) or social skills (E2).
Are these types correlated to social classes ? Are 489's social models of lower-class people, 156's social models of working-class or middle-class people, and 237's social models of upper-class people ? I feel these groups are like the were in a catalogue.
Are 489's more inclined to be poverty-stricken or incarcerated than 237's ?
Are 237's more inclined to be socially successful/adequate than 489's ?
Do 489's, 156's, 237's tend to form groups likes quadras or such ? They really seem (theoretically) to help each other in the group, i.e. "TRI-alize" like socionic pairs "DU-alize".
(EDIT: minor mistakes)