It's pretty hard to have physiological content from them, but I'll try (it's very approximate) :
Augusta : 5
Reinin : 4
Delong : 9
Lytov : 9
Gulenko : 5
Talanov : 4
Filatova : 2
Bukalov : 5
Enneagram types of Socionists
It's pretty hard to have physiological content from them, but I'll try (it's very approximate) :
Augusta : 5
Reinin : 4
Delong : 9
Lytov : 9
Gulenko : 5
Talanov : 4
Filatova : 2
Bukalov : 5
Most of your suggestions are probably wrong. Augusta is not a 5, Delong is a 7, and Filatova is probably not a 2. The others I have no clear opinion about, but it would be more natural to assume that Gulenko is a 1.
Would you mind sharing with us how you arrived at these typings? I am assuming that, for instance, you see something in common between Augusta and Gulenko (generators of models?) and between Lytov and DeLong (bringing socionics to the general public?) but it seems all rather shaky.Originally Posted by machintruc
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
He's very excessive, restless, and autonomous on thinking. I think he's an Intimate Five, like me.
I have known an Intimate Five LII priest which is pretty much like him.
I'm confident only for Delong and Gulenko.
Delong seems to want to get rid of most concepts that may appear redundant. +/-, Reinin dichotomies, or such, because "they are excess of white logic". Besides, he hates conflicts.
I typed others quickly by physiological correlations, just to open the subject.
But some typings don't give me much hesitations. For example, it's evident to see that Talanov is in the 459 group, and so on.
Besides, you don't do 100% of everything you do because you're a Five, just 62%.
Why is Augusta not a Five? And FTR, Rick has stated that he is most likely a Seven.
None of those is an argument against One. Ones can be excessive, restless and autonomous. In fact, one's being excessive and restless actually point more against Five than to it.
This adds nothing to your argument.I have known an Intimate Five LII priest which is pretty much like him.
Because she is supposed to be an ILE, which is an extraverted type, whereas type Five is an introverted type. It doesn't fit very well. The normal Enneatype for ILEs is of course type 7.
According to the n00b version of enneagram, yes.
I've already done research on that. According to the "liveliness" of each type (i.e. amount of neurotransmitters) we can say :
7 : 90% of Extrotims, 10% of Introtims
2 3 : 70% of Extrotims, 30% of Introtims
8 9 1 : 50% of Extrotims, 50% of Introtims
5 6 : 30% of Extrotims, 70% of Introtims
4 : 10% of Extrotims, 90% of Introtims
Statistically, Fives are Introtims, this is true. But saying that ALL Fives are Introtims is narrow-minded. You'll see ILE's easily, for example. I mistyped an ILE dude as LII for this reason.
Extrotimness is physiologically correlated to mood, stress, and drive. Not just drive.
Besides, I think you're an hardcore E1.
There is no better version. The Enneagram is a false theory that is internally inconsistent. We have to make a decision on what are the most important aspects, and I think they are the ones I have presented elsewhere.
Such a "research" is 100 % bullshit. Total crap.
No, it is not. We should decide to define type Five as introverted, because there is no reaso not do, and it would make the model more consistent. I will exclude every extraverted type from being a Five on principle. Introversion is a defining part of what it is like to be a Five.
But in fact I am not. I have compared those two types very thoroughly, and even though an outside observer might in some cases suspect that I could be a 1, it is very clear that I am a hardcore E5 -- that claim is impossible to doubt. I am a very typical self-preserving Five.
In a physiological sense, yes. But an E5 can still be an Extrotim.
Or explain me how Bill Gates (LIE-5) or Albert Einstein (ILE-5) are Introtims.
Preservational Fives are narrow-minded too
That's why I elaborated Model Phi. To make some bridge between Enneagram and Socionics. You should see that thread on the "Non-socionic theories" forum. It explains a lot.
The most important aspects are physiological. Descriptions such as fixation or virtue are approximate.
Enneagram is still useful to determine "styles" of types. Or else we'd be tempted to define ESI's as Sixes, ILI's as Fives, LSI's as Ones, and so on.
n00b's guide for Enneagram/Socionics conversion
all LIE's are E3
all EIE's are E2
all ILE's are E7
all SLE's are E8
all LSE's are E8
all ESE's are E2
all IEE's are E7
all SEE's are E7
all LII's are E5
all EII's are E2
all ILI's are E5
all SLI's are E9
all LSI's are E1
all ESI's are E6
all IEI's are E4
all SEI's are E9
I don't think so.
How do you know that they are 5s? If Gates really is an LIE, he is definitely not a 5, because no LIE in the world can be a 5. And actually I see no reason to believe that he is a 5. Does he really behave like a 5, and does he really have the typical attitudes of a 5? Can you give some examples that would support the claim that he is a 5? And if he really does have those traits, how can anyone believe that he is a LIE?
Okay. If that makes it easier for you to accept the fact that I am a 5 ...Preservational Fives are narrow-minded too
That list is incorrect too. The most interesting mistake is about SLEs and LIEs, which are totally twisted. It is much more correct to say that all LIEs are E8s and that all SLEs are E3s. And some (if not most) SEEs are also E3s.
Have you seen US Hell's Kitchen Nightmares? I saw the first episode a couple of minutes ago in which this guy (Peter) is a clear example of an Se leading type that is also an E3:
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/09835...hint=tt0983514
I am slightly unsure whether he is an SEE or an SLE though.
I'm just trying to caricature your narrow-mindedness
Then what types are Bill and Einstein to you ?
I don't know. Both are obviously logical types, but which ones are not obvious. If Bill is a LIE he is of course an 8, and if he is a 5 he is not a LIE. I haven't investigated his person that much so I don't have a clear opinon.
Einstein I have investigated, and if he was an ILE he should be a 7, but since he perhaps could have been a 5w4 (it is possible to imagine) it is not altogether certain that he really was an ILE. But if he really was a 5, he must have been one of the introverted types, and since we know that he was one of the irrational types and also that he was intuitive and logical, he must have been an ILI in that case.
However, this is a thread for typing socionists.
Why do you ask then?
I shouldn't have done it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
