# Thread: Enneagram Type 8, how it is more Se than Te

1. ## Enneagram Type 8, how it is more Se than Te

This isn't a discussion about what my Enneagram type is; I don't need misinformed retards discussing at length and arguing with me about what I already know to be plain fact.

Basically, I'm going to prove that in socionics (fuck you Phaedrus, you gain no respect or entry in this thread) Se is more Eightesque than socionics Te. I won't be able to do this in one post. Nor will I be able to do it without others' feeback. It'll start as a brainstorm, then will become a statement that is correct.

Firstly, let's look at Se and Te themselves, each in conjunction with the Eight. Since I can't be arsed writing a load of info you could all read in better words, use the wikisocion descriptions of Se and Te.

Now, look at the Eight. Read every single description you can find on the Eight. See the correlation between Se and the Eight? See how Se is the epitome of the Eight? If you don't, then you don't understand the Eight. You've either read crap descriptions, or you haven't read the descriptions at all. Or you don't understand Se.

2. Originally Posted by Ezra
See the correlation between Se and the Eight?
Absolutely. I believe that 8's are almost always Se valuing types.

3. Originally Posted by Joy
Absolutely. I believe that 8's are almost always Se valuing types.
Non-verbal Black Sensing Eights are mostly LSE's.

This is interesting because I test as a 5 and the person I want to be would probably be a 8...
That's cool, I want to be E2.

Now, look at the Eight. Read every single description you can find on the Eight. See the correlation between Se and the Eight? See how Se is the epitome of the Eight? If you don't, then you don't understand the Eight. You've either read crap descriptions, or you haven't read the descriptions at all. Or you don't understand Se.
According to Gulenko, Negativist Black Sensing is "the minimisation of the weakness". Eights' compulsion is "avoiding weakness". That coincides. In fact, this explains why they're mostly SLE's and LSI's.

4. Originally Posted by Ezra
Basically, I'm going to prove that in socionics (fuck you Phaedrus, you gain no respect or entry in this thread) Se is more Eightesque than socionics Te.
Here I am anyway ... Funny, isn't it? You are wrong of course. It is more Te than Se. Now you can try to figure out why.

Originally Posted by Ezra
Now, look at the Eight. Read every single description you can find on the Eight. See the correlation between Se and the Eight? See how Se is the epitome of the Eight? If you don't, then you don't understand the Eight. You've either read crap descriptions, or you haven't read the descriptions at all. Or you don't understand Se.
You won't be more right just by trying to sound like me, Ezra. You don't understand , that's for sure. You should try to figure out why you don't.

5. Originally Posted by Joy
Absolutely. I believe that 8's are almost always Se valuing types.
Sorry, but I will always believe that LSE is the quintessential 8. More than SLE, LSI, LIE, and SEE. However I do believe that most of what is in the description of 8-ness is Se related.

6. Originally Posted by Gilly
Sorry, but I will always believe that LSE is the quintessential 8. More than SLE, LSI, LIE, and SEE. However I do believe that most of what is in the description of 8-ness is Se related.
No, it's not. Though it's compatible, socionic LSE is more prototypical of E1 or E3.

Most Eights are Myersian ESTJ, but most of such ESTJ's are non-LSE's. According to observation, most Eights are either SLE or LSI (somehow 30-35&#37; of each). For the question of the prototype Eight, I still hesitate between SLE and LSI.

7. Well, I disagree completely. My mother is ENTJ-LSE 8w7 sp/sx. LSIs and SLEs can be 8s, but I think more LSIs are 1s and SLEs tend more towards 7. SEE would be second most likely for most frequent 8, IMO.

8. Originally Posted by Gilly
Well, I disagree completely. My mother is ENTJ-LSE 8w7 sp/sx. LSIs and SLEs can be 8s, but I think more LSIs are 1s and SLEs tend more towards 7. SEE would be second most likely for most frequent 8, IMO.
If however you consider all Eights as Intimate, SEE would be the first or the second most frequent.

Otherwise, first position would be shared between SLE and LSI, just because Eights' ego defence mechanism is relevant to Negativist .

Check Rick's lists for SLE and LSI, and then find these celebrities in Enneagram lists. You'll be surprised.

Such narrow-mindedness may even lead to mistyping. For example, I know a priest. I typed him LSI, without much hesitation. Then I typed him as E8. But he was even-tempered, and not moody, then I retyped him as E1. But wait !!? He's too "energitic, competing" to be E1. OK, a LSI can be E8, but can he be E3 !!? I've done research on physiology and neurotranmitters (which resulted in Model Phi), and then I could type him as E3.

9. /me vomits on your research

10. Originally Posted by Gilly
At least, I'm moving my ass to discover the truth.

11. Originally Posted by machintruc
Though it's compatible, socionic LSE is more prototypical of E1 or E3.

Most Eights are Myersian ESTJ, but most of such ESTJ's are non-LSE's. According to observation, most Eights are either SLE or LSI (somehow 30-35% of each). For the question of the prototype Eight, I still hesitate between SLE and LSI.
Except from the statement that most Eights are Myersian ESTJs, all of that is total bullshit.

12. Originally Posted by machintruc
If however you consider all Eights as Intimate, SEE would be the first or the second most frequent.

Otherwise, first position would be shared between SLE and LSI, just because Eights' ego defence mechanism is relevant to Negativist .

Check Rick's lists for SLE and LSI, and then find these celebrities in Enneagram lists. You'll be surprised.

Such narrow-mindedness may even lead to mistyping. For example, I know a priest. I typed him LSI, without much hesitation. Then I typed him as E8. But he was even-tempered, and not moody, then I retyped him as E1. But wait !!? He's too "energitic, competing" to be E1. OK, a LSI can be E8, but can he be E3 !!? I've done research on physiology and neurotranmitters (which resulted in Model Phi), and then I could type him as E3.
An LSI-3 priest? Mmmmhhh....

13. Besides, I don't think LSE is that much prototypical of E8, because LSE is a "light" type, whereas SLE and LSI are "heavy" types.

Light Pragmatists are more "mechanical", whereas Heavy Pragmatists are more "physical". E8 is in essence more "physical" than "mechanical".

Light ST's are "going", whereas Heavy ST's are "doing".

14. Originally Posted by machintruc
Non-verbal Black Sensing Eights are mostly LSE's.
...

What?

According to Gulenko, Negativist Black Sensing is "the minimisation of the weakness". Eights' compulsion is "avoiding weakness". That coincides. In fact, this explains why they're mostly SLE's and LSI's.
Good point.

Originally Posted by Gilly
Sorry, but I will always believe that LSE is the quintessential 8. More than SLE, LSI, LIE, and SEE. However I do believe that most of what is in the description of 8-ness is Se related.
Why though? I'm interested to know why you think that? You, because you have sense, and I can understand your non-dogmatic approach.

Basically, where I stand is that the LSE is someone who is good at controlling their aggression, and who doesn't like it, so refrains from it as much as possible. The Eight, on the other hand, is someone who will willingly use their aggression as a tactic to gain what they want. They don't need to control it. This is the main problem I have with the LSE as an Eight. Perhaps you can explain why you think an Eight can be an LSE.

Originally Posted by Gilly
Well, I disagree completely. My mother is ENTJ-LSE 8w7 sp/sx. LSIs and SLEs can be 8s, but I think more LSIs are 1s and SLEs tend more towards 7. SEE would be second most likely for most frequent 8, IMO.
Right, if we were talking in MBTT terms, I'd agree with all but the final statement. ISTJs are rarely Eights (and very often Ones), and ESTPs are quite often Sevens, especially 7w8s. As for ESFP, these are mainly Sevens in my eyes. But socionically-speaking, I'd agree that Eights can be SEEs, SLEs and LSIs, because of the Se valuing. In my eyes, ESI is pushing it a bit, and the description doesn't really fit the Eight, nor does the functional ordering.

15. Originally Posted by Ezra
Why though? I'm interested to know why you think that? You, because you have sense, and I can understand your non-dogmatic approach.

Basically, where I stand is that the LSE is someone who is good at controlling their aggression, and who doesn't like it, so refrains from it as much as possible. The Eight, on the other hand, is someone who will willingly use their aggression as a tactic to gain what they want. They don't need to control it. This is the main problem I have with the LSE as an Eight. Perhaps you can explain why you think an Eight can be an LSE.
Non- Eights are mostly LIE's and LSE's. LIE Eights are more focusing on long-term vengeance () than really thinking of intimidating others. Think of Machiavelli. LSE Eights are more like "angry workers" or "cops" (I think of Sully in Third Watch series) ; they may look like some "light" version of LSI.

Though LSE is not really the most relevant type for Eight (they're mostly Ones or Threes), it's always possible.

If you're a fan of video games, you may type Sega as LSE-8.

Originally Posted by Ezra
Right, if we were talking in MBTT terms, I'd agree with all but the final statement. ISTJs are rarely Eights (and very often Ones), and ESTPs are quite often Sevens, especially 7w8s. As for ESFP, these are mainly Sevens in my eyes. But socionically-speaking, I'd agree that Eights can be SEEs, SLEs and LSIs, because of the Se valuing. In my eyes, ESI is pushing it a bit, and the description doesn't really fit the Eight, nor does the functional ordering.
My dad is ESI-8 or if I mistyped him, he'd be cp6. But I don't think he's cp6 because I know ESI-6 family members to compare with. My dad is too energitic to be E6. If not E8, he'd be E3 then, and I don't think he fits E3, because he's moody, and quick to anger.

Another example would be Dark Vador (or Front 242's Jean-Luc De Meyer, or Marlene Dietrich). But for ESI, that's not the most frequent case. They're mostly Sixes.

16. I think you are placing too much emphasis on the use of aggression to accomplish goals as a requisite of 8-ness. I don't see aggression being the primary trait of 8s so much as forcefulness. They all apply pressure and use their available means to accomplish what needs to be done, but I don't think that using aggression productively is the defining characteristic of an 8.

Oh, and another counter-example, my grandfather was an ENTJ Si-ESE 8w9 sx/so. There seems, at least, to be something of a correlation with MBTI ENTJ.

17. Originally Posted by machintruc
At least, I'm moving my ass to discover the truth.
Looks like you need to keep moving.

18. Originally Posted by Gilly
Oh, and another counter-example, my grandfather was an ENTJ Si-ESE 8w9 sx/so. There seems, at least, to be something of a correlation with MBTI ENTJ.
Do you have examples of such Eights ? (ESE-3 is frequent, but never heard of ESE-8)

Usually, if an ESE resembles a Eight, he/she may be E3 or intimate E2 or maybe E1 (to render compatible with ESE), or sometimes he/she is LSI, SEE, or ESI (to render compatible with E8).

19. http://www.conf-intimes.1k.fr/voir_video.php?num=27

The chubby girl is an immature SEE-i8

20. Well I'm absolutely positive he was an 8, and I made ESE my final decision when I gave Expat a blind VI and he said ESE. LSE would be possible but highly improbable; he was married to a Ti-SLE.

I don't personally know any other ESE 8s off the top of my head, but I don't see why it should be so hard to imagine. If all of the other ESxx can, why not ESE?

21. Originally Posted by Gilly
Well I'm absolutely positive he was an 8, and I made ESE my final decision when I gave Expat a blind VI and he said ESE. LSE would be possible but highly improbable; he was married to a Ti-SLE.

I don't personally know any other ESE 8s off the top of my head, but I don't see why it should be so hard to imagine. If all of the other ESxx can, why not ESE?
Because ESE's are . They are too friendly and super cool to be E8. I think Eights wish they were ESE, because ESE's are very friendly and sociable, whereas Eights are hostile and unsociable.

22. ...So why can't an ESE actually be an 8?

23. Originally Posted by Gilly
...So why can't an ESE actually be an 8?
Because they don't like them, and they're right because I don't like Eights either.

...no seriously I don't know

24. Right on then.

FTR, I agree that 8-ness is definitely Se-oriented. However I don't think it would be right to assume that all 8s have to value Se just because their classification as an 8 is based on behaviors related to its strength.

25. Originally Posted by Gilly
Right on then.

FTR, I agree that 8-ness is definitely Se-oriented. However I don't think it would be right to assume that all 8s have to value Se just because their classification as an 8 is based on behaviors related to its strength.
E8 doesn't mean you're physically strong, it just means you have an high drive, and you have an high physiological feeling for doing things, i.e. high dopamin level.

26. Besides, why is Alpha the coolest quadra ?

Because there's no Eights.

27. Originally Posted by machintruc
E8 doesn't mean you're physically strong,
Never said it did.

it just means you have an high drive, and you have an high physiological feeling for doing things, i.e. high dopamin level.

That doesn't sound far off of having strong Se. I don't think we're disagreeing here, really

28. Originally Posted by machintruc
Besides, why is Alpha the coolest quadra ?

Because there's no Eights.
More like "there are only 8w9s," I'd say :wink:

29. Originally Posted by Gilly
More like "there are only 8w9s," I'd say :wink:
Then, if one day, I encounter an ESE girl, I first verify that she's not E8, because I hate Eights lol

ESE's are just so cool. Even for non-LII's. Don't you like friendly people ? Who's stupid enough to hate friendly people ? Eights. Because they don't know what being friendly means. Friendliness is not hard. It's easy. Just listen others and feed them back adequately. Eights can't, because they're bad listeners.

Eights are the worst listeners of the whole Enneagram. That's why I hate them. Talking to an Eight is like talking to a wall. They envy those who have more social skills than them, and who can lead others more efficiently than them, by not playing autocratic retard. That's why they envy Twos and Fives, for example. They seek power, but don't intimidate people. They are friendly. Besides, nobody can handle Eights, except Twos. Only Twos are empathetic and self-effaced enough to cope with the egocentrism of Eights. That's a point I like in Eights : they like Twos. I like Twos too.

Like Twos, Eights are overly sensitive. They don't like frustration, and get angry easily. They are capricious, and annoy people with their stupid moods. They only think "I", "me", "mine", "myself", or such. They are extremely egocentric. I remembered that chubby girl in that TV programme that said "you're the centre of the world for me". No. Her boyfriend isn't the centre of her world. She does.

@Eights: don't take this too personnally. You know, I still hate Fours and Sixes more than you.

(I wrote all this being drunk lolol) ...a pint of beer, good stuff.

30. Not all 8s are naturally that obnoxious, and I think even many of the ones who are eventually learn to adapt at least insofar as not being sociopaths You're blowing the egocentrism bit out of proportion, I think.

31. Originally Posted by Gilly
Sorry, but I will always believe that LSE is the quintessential 8. More than SLE, LSI, LIE, and SEE. However I do believe that most of what is in the description of 8-ness is Se related.
You may be on to something here. I actually think that 8 is strongly influenced by Jung's Extraverted Thinking type, which to me is a mix of several logical types, with more than a bit of LSI and SLE; so 8 has elements of both Se and Te. Both SLEs and LSEs have them as strong functions - 1st and 8th - so, despite being quasi-identicals (and therefore quite different in socionics), it may make sense that they would both fit 8 best.

32. Originally Posted by Expat
You may be on to something here. I actually think that 8 is strongly influenced by Jung's Extraverted Thinking type, which to me is a mix of several logical types, with more than a bit of LSI and SLE; so 8 has elements of both Se and Te. Both SLEs and LSEs have them as strong functions - 1st and 8th - so, despite being quasi-identicals (and therefore quite different in socionics), it may make sense that they would both fit 8 best.
I agree with Expat that that's the essence of type 8. It's possible that it is also a mixture of some other types, but to say that it is more Se than Te is simply false. Jung's Extraverted Thinking type is -- mostly -- a description of Te leading types in Socionics, that much is clear and should not be disputed.

33. Originally Posted by machintruc
Front 242's Jean-Luc De Meyer
An Eight or counterphobic Six in your eyes? And an ESI or what? I personally doubt that the ESI can be an Eight. You'll have to convince me otherwise.

Originally Posted by Gilly
I think you are placing too much emphasis on the use of aggression to accomplish goals as a requisite of 8-ness. I don't see aggression being the primary trait of 8s so much as forcefulness. They all apply pressure and use their available means to accomplish what needs to be done, but I don't think that using aggression productively is the defining characteristic of an 8.
Aren't aggression and forcefulness the same thing?

There seems, at least, to be something of a correlation with MBTI ENTJ.
Many MBTTists would say that ENTJ fits Eight best.

Originally Posted by machintruc
Do you have examples of such Eights ? (ESE-3 is frequent, but never heard of ESE-8)
Well, I've no doubt that Klaus Kinski is an Eight, and Expat suggester (when I first joined the forum) that he was a Fe ego type, no doubt about it.

Originally Posted by Gilly
More like "there are only 8w9s," I'd say :wink:
ILE I think could be an Eight. Jimbean seems to think he is an ILE 8w7.

Originally Posted by machintruc
Eights are the worst listeners of the whole Enneagram. That's why I hate them. Talking to an Eight is like talking to a wall. They envy those who have more social skills than them, and who can lead others more efficiently than them, by not playing autocratic retard. That's why they envy Twos and Fives, for example. They seek power, but don't intimidate people. They are friendly. Besides, nobody can handle Eights, except Twos. Only Twos are empathetic and self-effaced enough to cope with the egocentrism of Eights. That's a point I like in Eights : they like Twos. I like Twos too.
You're a bit of an idiot aren't you.

34. Aren't aggression and forcefulness the same thing?
No way. Forcefulness is just insisting upon some kind of change; aggression brings an emotional element into the picture. It's using force if you fire someone for drinking on the job, but hey, maybe you only did it because you had to; maybe you drink on the job, too, and really liked the guy, but had to exercise authority ("force") because of the position you occupy, whether or not you had feelings of any kind (including aggression) towards him.

ILE I think could be an Eight. Jimbean seems to think he is an ILE 8w7.
I personally think Jimbean is LSI, but regardless, I find it hard to imagine an ILE 8. I have yet to run across any obvious 8s who could have been ILEs and visa versa.

You're a bit of an idiot aren't you.[/quote]

35. Originally Posted by Gilly
I personally think Jimbean is LSI, but regardless, I find it hard to imagine an ILE 8. I have yet to run across any obvious 8s who could have been ILEs and visa versa.
An Eight with in super-ego doesn't really make sense.

All ILE's I know/have known are E5, E7 or E9. I think E3 and E6 are possible. Maybe E2 and E4. ILE-8 and ILE-1 don't really make sense to me.

Originally Posted by Ezra
You're a bit of an idiot aren't you.
Come on, dude, such digs don't hurt anybody... And I didn't say that all Eights should go in Gulags or concentration camps...

36. I think the poor distinction that is causing mixed interpretations of type 8 is exactly that which I just outlined for Ezra. It appears as though some, like machintruc, interpret the 8 as driven by aggression such that it pervades their behavior, while others, like myself, think that aggression is more of an underlying psychological motivator of the 8, the resulting behavior of which is not necessarily "aggressive" so much as simply forceful or insistent.

37. Originally Posted by Gilly
I think the poor distinction that is causing mixed interpretations of type 8 is exactly that which I just outlined for Ezra. It appears as though some, like machintruc, interpret the 8 as driven by aggression such that it pervades their behavior, while others, like myself, think that aggression is more of an underlying psychological motivator of the 8, the resulting behavior of which is not necessarily "aggressive" so much as simply forceful or insistent.
They aren't aggression-oriented because they're Eights, but because they are moody and thus tend to be "reactive".

Fours and Sixes are aggression-oriented too, except that their drive is lower than Eights', so they won't really persevere and stick to things as much than them.

38. 8s are classified in the instinctual triad so that's not much a leap however it's still a generalization with no data to back it up.

39. Originally Posted by Expat
You may be on to something here. I actually think that 8 is strongly influenced by Jung's Extraverted Thinking type, which to me is a mix of several logical types, with more than a bit of LSI and SLE; so 8 has elements of both Se and Te. Both SLEs and LSEs have them as strong functions - 1st and 8th - so, despite being quasi-identicals (and therefore quite different in socionics), it may make sense that they would both fit 8 best.
Mhm, sounds good to me.

40. Originally Posted by Gilly
No way. Forcefulness is just insisting upon some kind of change; aggression brings an emotional element into the picture. It's using force if you fire someone for drinking on the job, but hey, maybe you only did it because you had to; maybe you drink on the job, too, and really liked the guy, but had to exercise authority ("force") because of the position you occupy, whether or not you had feelings of any kind (including aggression) towards him.
I tend to disassociate aggression and emotion. When I first came to the Enneagram, I learned that the Eight was an aggressive character, but when I looked at MBTI-Enneagram correlations in the back of a book by Baron and Wagele called The Enneagram Made Easy (I think), I was bewildered to find that a Feeling Eight was rare. Why was this? How could it be that Eights were aggressive, which is blatently an emotion, and mostly if not always Thinking types? Well, the only reason was that aggression was not emotion. Or, more aptly, aggression was in fact applied strategically by the Eight.

[quote[Come on, dude, such digs don't hurt anybody...[/QUOTE]

It's not a dig; I'm stating an objective fact.

Originally Posted by Gilly
I think the poor distinction that is causing mixed interpretations of type 8 is exactly that which I just outlined for Ezra. It appears as though some, like machintruc, interpret the 8 as driven by aggression such that it pervades their behavior, while others, like myself, think that aggression is more of an underlying psychological motivator of the 8, the resulting behavior of which is not necessarily "aggressive" so much as simply forceful or insistent.
So you think that the LSE could be, at heart, an aggressive and forceful character?

Originally Posted by UDP
Mhm, sounds good to me.
Of course it sounds good to you; it fits perfectly with your self-perception of LSE Eight.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last