Possible Enneagram types of forum members

[Ezra]

These three in particular make no sense.

Consider the context, Isha. He has a prejudice against Reactives (Fours, Sixes and Eights), hasn't ever read what Joy has said about herself, and has never met Expat.

As if taken from a lunatic's diary. Niffweed is definitely a 5, I am the most certain 5 imaginable

Personally, I think it's easier to imagine niffweed as a Five than it is to imagine you are.

Rmcnew ... a 1? That suggestion wins first prize in the Absurdity Contest.

Why is McNew's being a One shocking to you? He's an EII.

The only thing glaringly obvious from this list is that you seem to have NO concept of an enneatype 4.

No, I think Herzy's being a Seven, my being an Eight, tcaudilllg's being a Five, Fabio's being a Seven, Kristiina's being a Three, liveandletlive's being a Seven and UDP's being a One is glaringly obvious.

No. There are no IEI Fives, and there are no SEE Eights.

Why are there no SEE Eights or IEI Fives? Look: INFP Fives are quite common, and INFJ Fives can be found.

[Phaedrus]

Personally, I think it's easier to imagine niffweed as a Five than it is to imagine you are.

I am 100 % sure that both niffweed and I are Fives. It's rather irrelevant which one is easier for you to see as a Five, since we are both very clear Fives.

Why is McNew's being a One shocking to you? He's an EII.

No, he is an IEE.

Why are there no SEE Eights or IEI Fives?

Because every Five and every Eight is a logical type.

Look: INFP Fives are quite common, and INFJ Fives can be found.

No. They don't exist.

[machintruc]

Every 1 is a J, every 2 is an F, every 3 is an E, every 4 is an N, every 5 is an IT, every 6 is ... well, this is not as clear as some of the other types, but most of the 6s are certainly IJs (ISFj is the prototypical type), every 7 is a P, every 8 is an E, and every 9 is an IP

(source: http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=User:Brilliand)

Every E1 is J : there are rare cases of SLI's for example

Every E2 is F : there are rare cases of LSE's for example

Every E3 is E : mostly, but I found a significant amount of cases of LSI's, and less frequent cases of ESI's and SLI's

Every E4 is N : globally, they're mostly Intuitive, but what do you think of SEI's ? besides, there are rare cases of LSE's.

Every E5 is IT : mostly, quite frequent cases of ILE's and LIE's happen in the case of an Intimate Five

E6 is mostly IJ : true. Cases of IP types happen (SLI, ILI) ; as well as quite frequent cases of EJ (LIE, EIE, LSE), and rare cases of EP (IEE)

Every E7 is P : mostly, but you may find some cases of LSI's and ESI's, as well as ESE's and EIE's, or even LIE's.

Every E8 is E : it's easy to find LSI's, and there are rare cases of ESI's and SLI's.

Every E9 is IP : globally, Nines are mostly IEE's. Less frequent cases of ILE's or EII's can be found.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Ok, at least you got my type right machin

[Phaedrus]

Every E1 is J: there are rare cases of SLI's for example

The J-ness of E1 is totally obvious, so how can a clear IP type belong there? What exactly is the typing method you use to determine that it is really an SLI, and that that SLI is an E1 for sure? It is much, much, much, more likely that it is either not an SLI or that the SLI is not an E1. A much more simple explanation that you cannot have any objective reason to dismiss.

Every E2 is F: there are rare cases of LSE's for example

The same aruguments apply here. If it is a clear example of an E2, then it is not a LSE but more likely an ESE.

Every E3 is E: mostly, but I found a significant amount of cases of LSI's, and less frequent cases of ESI's and SLI's

No. There are lots of LSIs that can easily be mistaken for E3s due to their obsession with positions of power etc. But they are still E1s, and they identify with being E1s (I have tested them). An outside observer who don't understand their real motivations might think that they are E3s though.

Every E4 is N: globally, they're mostly Intuitive, but what do you think of SEI's? besides, there are rare cases of LSE's.

SEIs can't be E4s because SEIs are clearly (in every single case) S types. LSEs can of course not be E4s, that doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe you mistake some of them for E4s due to their obsessions with New-Age stuff, conspiracy theories etc. (not true of the majority of LSEs, but I have seen it in one LSE I know IRL).

Every E5 is IT: mostly, quite frequent cases of ILE's and LIE's happen in the case of an Intimate Five

They might test as E5s, but are they really E5s? They certainly don't have the same typical E5 attitudes as I do. I strongly doubt that they really are E5s, but it doesn't make as little sense as your previous suggestions.

E6 is mostly IJ: true. Cases of IP types happen (SLI, ILI); as well as quite frequent cases of EJ (LIE, EIE, LSE), and rare cases of EP (IEE)

The ILIs are mistyped. They are probably 5w6s. The SLI is the problematic type in the Enneagram because it doesn't fit naturally anywhere. I really don't care much where you put it (as long as you don't put them in E1, E2, or E4), but it makes most sense to put all of the SLIs in E5 due to their PoLR and creative .

Every E7 is P: mostly, but you may find some cases of LSI's and ESI's, as well as ESE's and EIE's, or even LIE's.

There are certainly no LSI in E7. That is totally out of the question -- it's a contradiction in terms. Get rid of that insane idea immediately. You simply cannot put two opposing temperaments in the same Enneagram type. It is of course equally insane to put an ESI there. Impossible. And I don't believe that there are any ESEs, EIEs, or LIEs there. I think that FDG has mistyped himself in one of these two systems. Either he is not an E7 but an 8w7, or he is not a LIE. I cannot see any strong reason why that is not still a possibility. The Enneagram is not so well defined that you can say with certainty that someone who have traits of both E8 and E7 cannot be one or the other. And if you are an LIE you should be an E8, not an E7.

Every E8 is E: it's easy to find LSI's, and there are rare cases of ESI's and SLI's.

The LSIs are most likely mistyped E1s, and the SLIs ... they are the problematic ones as usual, but it's not their fault, it's the Enneagram's fault.

Every E9 is IP: globally, Nines are mostly IEE's. Less frequent cases of ILE's or EII's can be found.

No. Globally most Nines are definitely SEIs. No EIIs can be found -- they are mistyped IEIs in that case, or they are E6s or E4s. The IEEs are E7s -- all of them. You have Rick mistyped for sure. Some ILEs can identify strongly with E9, but when you observe their behaviours and attitudes more closely, you realize that they are really E7s too.

[Expat]

I confess that I have problems with the concept of a SEI as 4. I can see why some SEIs, to the outside observer, would appear as 4; but if you look at what really makes type 4 internally, I can't see how that would work. I think 4s are most obviously IEI; if you really want to stretch it, I guess some of the more non-E3 EIEs might then fit in 4, too. And a LSE who would be a 4 would be Bizarro-world stuff in my opinion.

Of course a SEI can easily identify with lots of 4 characteristics, but why would they be more like 4s than like 9s?

[Kristiina]

Also, I think Kristiina as 2 makes no sense. I think she's a clear 3.

mhhh... Actually I do see some logic in E2, level 4 "Want to be closer to others, so start "people pleasing," becoming overly friendly, emotionally demonstrative, and full of "good intentions" about everything. Give seductive attention: approval, "strokes," flattery. Love is their supreme value, and they talk about it constantly."

E2 always seemed very "wise" IEE (knows how others are feeling so decides for them) or annoying ESE ("are you sure you don't want soup. It's still warm!", ..."for the fifth time, NO!"). I can see some logic in this short description. One time we were in a pub with friends and we were lifting chairs around and I made sure that we don't block the way for other people. The ISTj told me, "wow, you are so considerate toward other people, I wouldn't have even thought of that". That's consistent with E2.

but what do I know about enneagram anyway. I just made many many tests and in the end stumbled upon a description that I didn't disagree with.

[Phaedrus]

Enneagram Type Two (the Helper) with Enneagram Type Three (the Achiever)

What Each Type Brings to the Relationship
Both Enneagram Twos and Threes are driven by their feelings and emotional needs-although this is not always apparent in the case of Threes. Both are also driven by their need for attention and the desire to be loved-although this is not always apparent in the case of Twos. But for these reasons, both are oriented toward people and toward activities that will place them in the spotlight. This makes the Two/Three couple one of the most interpersonally attractive and impactful pairings possible. Individually and collectively, they are outgoing, sociable, high-spirited, charming, and often physically attractive. Both know how to make a favorable impression on people and to win them over. Each type brings energy, personal and social ambition, the ability to communicate with people and to make others feel like they are the center of attention. Both know how to get people to like them and to rally support to achieve their goals. Twos in particular bring a more personal, individual focus to their interactions with others. They are thoughtful and follow up exchanges with genuine kindness and compassion. Threes bring flexibility, charm, practicality, and a goal-oriented vision for ways the couple can improve. Twos like to feel proud of their loved ones, and Threes want to make their partner proud.

There is also a particular way that this pairing works as a team: Twos like to put the spotlight on others, and Threes like to be in the spotlight. Twos like to be the power behind the throne, and Threes can be happy being the point person for the couple. As long as healthy Threes appreciate the lavish attention of the Two, this arrangement can work well. In a sense, this is almost an ideal political couple—socially adept, energetic, virtually radiating charm and self-confidence, inviting others (by their manner and attractiveness) to join them in some way. Twos and Threes can be dazzling—a couple so widely admired and socially gifted that they become icons for their social sphere and time.

Potential Trouble Spots or Issues
A couple with such conscious star power also tends to be self-conscious—and even more conscious of each other. Twos get jealous and possessive of Threes. They can fall into a "I made you—you owe me" syndrome, feeling used and unappreciated. For all of their apparent willingness to take second place, Twos want to be recognized privately by their partners and to be made to feel that they are important. But Threes typically find it difficult to thank others for their success or to share the glory. Moreover, Threes may feel that Twos overestimate their contributions: they take credit for too much, sometimes, embarrassingly, in public. As a result, Twos can start to undermine the Three's confidence to get the Three to feel that he or she depends on the Two. Threes react quickly and strongly to perceived criticism and potential humiliation by distancing themselves—inevitably creating more anxiety and manipulation in the Two, a vicious cycle.

Part of the problem is that both have underlying feelings of shame and vulnerability and they know each other's weak spots and can play on them when they have to. Furthermore, potential conflicts can arise because neither Twos nor Threes are particularly introspective nor are they very interested in their own underlying motives. They simply assume that they are traveling in the same direction—toward increasing success and social validation-only to realize that they have drifted apart and may actually be at loggerheads with each other. Twos fundamentally feel that Threes put work and career before them, their children and home life, primary values for Twos. They feel that Threes are too focused on success and that they are missing the really valuable things in life. Threes, on the other hand, can feel stifled by the Two's insistence on the need to spend time together. Threes feel Twos are smothering and emotionally manipulative, making them feel guilty for working hard and making the most of themselves. Intimacy deteriorates into bickering, and what it means to have a successful relationship becomes a real question. Disdain for each other can erupt into open hostilities.

[aka-kitsune]

Female IEI Fives may think they're Fours because as Female Ethical types, they think they fit better E4, because they perceive it as a "girly" type. (In fact, IEI women are girly)

Wrongo.

IEI Fours are likely 4w5s. You're thinking of the stereotypical flamboyant 4w3. 4w5s are not at ALL "girly". They're often serious-minded, intellectual, but also emotionally volatile; usually more introverted and introspective than the 4w3.

Do some research. In the real world. Meet some real 4s.

[Ezra]

Every E1 is J : there are rare cases of SLI's for example

Every E2 is F : there are rare cases of LSE's for example

Every E3 is E : mostly, but I found a significant amount of cases of LSI's, and less frequent cases of ESI's and SLI's

Every E4 is N : globally, they're mostly Intuitive, but what do you think of SEI's ? besides, there are rare cases of LSE's.

Every E5 is IT : mostly, quite frequent cases of ILE's and LIE's happen in the case of an Intimate Five

E6 is mostly IJ : true. Cases of IP types happen (SLI, ILI) ; as well as quite frequent cases of EJ (LIE, EIE, LSE), and rare cases of EP (IEE)

Every E7 is P : mostly, but you may find some cases of LSI's and ESI's, as well as ESE's and EIE's, or even LIE's.

Every E8 is E : it's easy to find LSI's, and there are rare cases of ESI's and SLI's.

Every E9 is IP : globally, Nines are mostly IEE's. Less frequent cases of ILE's or EII's can be found.

I would love to see a correctly typed SLI One, LSE Two, and LSE Four (this is most laughable, like an EII Eight). In fact, machintruc, do me favour and show me a video of these individuals. To me, they are almost completely contradictory.

[machintruc]

I would love to see a correctly typed SLI One, LSE Two, and LSE Four

Susan Sarandon : SLI-1
Milla Jovovich : LSE-2
Greta Garbo : LSE-4

I've never wrote that EII Eights existed. You need to consult an ophtalmologist

[machintruc]

I wasn't saying that Reactive Types were evil. I said that I didn't like them. I consider myself as a friendly person, and I don't like hostile people. That's all.

[machintruc]

Friendly/hostile is subjective.

Then who finds S+ phitypes hostile or S- phitypes friendly ?

[machintruc]

Of course a SEI can easily identify with lots of 4 characteristics, but why would they be more like 4s than like 9s?

SEI's are still more likely E9 than E4. E9 is the most frequent. E4 is next.

[FDG]

And if you are an LIE you should be an E8, not an E7.

How come a positivist type is bound to be in the low serotonin group? I do think your classifications are too rigid, Phaedrus. I even know a SLI 7! The ennagram is not scientific, its descriptions are vague, so if you meet an: optimistic, energetic, a bit distracted, risk taking kind of person you can totally type him as both 7 and SLI or LIE! As well as IEE or ILE.

No 7 description in fact says that a seven is: punctual or unpunctual, organized or not organized, and here you can add al the typical J P kind of stuff

[Ezra]

Susan Sarandon : SLI-1

Okay, I can see the case for Fe PoLR (regardless of whether or not she's an SLI), but what makes you so sure she's a One?

Milla Jovovich : LSE-2

I've seen interviews of Milla Jovovich, and I've come to the conclusion that Rick is wrong about her being an LSE. I see Fe, whether she values it or not. She is certainly not Fe role.

Greta Garbo : LSE-4

I see IP temperament from the outset, which practically contradicts EJ, as it's the complete opposite. She's far more likely to be a Four than an LSE. What made you come to the conclusion that she was LSE?

I've never wrote that EII Eights existed.

I was using that as a comparison with LSE Four. I see LSE and Four as almost completely contradictory, in the same was I see EII and Eight as almost completely contradictory.

I wasn't saying that Reactive Types were evil.

Nor was I inferring it.

I even know a SLI 7!

I'd say these were quite common, to be honest. Si for Seven is like Se for Eight, in my eyes; a very good match. And there's no reason why a Seven shouldn't have Fe PoLR. Their motivation isn't to raise moods and emotionally effect others; it's to enjoy themselves. In essence, Fabio, Phaedrus isn't just rigid, he's unwilling to accept anything but his own truth; Phaetruth.

[machintruc]

Okay, I can see the case for Fe PoLR (regardless of whether or not she's an SLI), but what makes you so sure she's a One?

I'm not sure. She may be E5.

I've seen interviews of Milla Jovovich, and I've come to the conclusion that Rick is wrong about her being an LSE. I see Fe, whether she values it or not. She is certainly not Fe role.

She's EJ, and Asking. Then LSE.

Or maybe she's just an E1 who tries to display lots of because it's fuckin' girly.

I see IP temperament from the outset, which practically contradicts EJ, as it's the complete opposite. She's far more likely to be a Four than an LSE. What made you come to the conclusion that she was LSE?

On a Celebrity Benchmark she's been typed LSE by 100% of 4 socionists. I think that's quite reliable.

I was using that as a comparison with LSE Four. I see LSE and Four as almost completely contradictory, in the same was I see EII and Eight as almost completely contradictory.

EII Eight is contradictory, due to . Statistically, E8 is the most "Sensing" type. Most exceptions are LIE, but I can't imagine an EII.

Even "pushy" EII's tend to be E6.

But I don't see how is LSE-4 contradictory.

I'd say these were quite common, to be honest. Si for Seven is like Se for Eight, in my eyes; a very good match. And there's no reason why a Seven shouldn't have Fe PoLR. Their motivation isn't to raise moods and emotionally effect others; it's to enjoy themselves. In essence, Fabio, Phaedrus isn't just rigid, he's unwilling to accept anything but his own truth; Phaetruth.

Seven is quite rare. ESE's and SLI's may be E7, but globally, they're mostly EP types, with a few EJ or IJ exceptions.

[implied]

I've seen interviews of Milla Jovovich, and I've come to the conclusion that Rick is wrong about her being an LSE. I see Fe, whether she values it or not. She is certainly not Fe role.

why is she not Fe role? i think she's at least EXTx. i think the Fe that she shows is much more situational and probably even what would could be construed as "false Fe" by a real Fe type.

[Ezra]

She's EJ, and Asking. Then LSE.

Maybe EJ, maybe Si, but I see no reason to confirm LSE on the basis of a fucking Reinin dichotomy.

Or maybe she's just an E1 who tries to display lots of because it's fuckin' girly.

...

I don't understand where you get that notion from at all.

On a Celebrity Benchmark she's been typed LSE by 100% of 4 socionists. I think that's quite reliable.

And if 59% of seventy-two socionists said she was Beta NF; what would you say then?

Explain why you think she's a Four.

But I don't see how is LSE-4 contradictory.

Okay, perhaps not contradictory, but it makes no sense to me. The typical Four is an IEI; how could another Four value the exact opposite of this? Fours are characterised by their need for artistic self-expression and their typical interest in mysticism and the esoteric, which, as Ni PoLR individuals, LSEs couldn't give a shit about. It's beyond them. I just find the concept of Greta Garbo's being a Four a complete head-fuck. You don't even need logic to show that it's not true; you can just say it isn't, because it so obviously isn't.

Seven is quite rare. ESE's and SLI's may be E7, but globally, they're mostly EP types, with a few EJ or IJ exceptions.

I have no qualms with Sevens who are Si types. It makes perfect sense, as I described to Fabio.

why is she not Fe role? i think she's at least EXTx. i think the Fe that she shows is much more situational and probably even what would could be construed as "false Fe" by a real Fe type.

Why do you think "she's at least" a Logical Extratim type? I don't know why you think her Fe could be deemed false either. Can Barack Obama's Fe be deemed false? Ronald Regan? Hamlet?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Susan Sarandon : SLI-1

She's probably LSE

[machintruc]

Maybe EJ, maybe Si, but I see no reason to confirm LSE on the basis of a fucking Reinin dichotomy.

Actually, I'm the only dude who has the right to say the F-word

I don't think she fits ESE. Her movements aren't "expressive" but rather machine-like. She's more like than . LSE's look like robots.

And if 59% of seventy-two socionists said she was Beta NF; what would you say then?

Explain why you think she's a Four.

She may be an Intimate Six... I'm not sure 100% she's E4, but she doesn't look lively enough to be E6.

She's either -+- or -+0.

Okay, perhaps not contradictory, but it makes no sense to me. The typical Four is an IEI; how could another Four value the exact opposite of this? Fours are characterised by their need for artistic self-expression and their typical interest in mysticism and the esoteric, which, as Ni PoLR individuals, LSEs couldn't give a shit about. It's beyond them. I just find the concept of Greta Garbo's being a Four a complete head-fuck. You don't even need logic to show that it's not true; you can just say it isn't, because it so obviously isn't.

Like all Extrotims have to be D0 or D+ ? What the fuck ? Can't Fours be Extrotims ?

Not all Fours fit this fuckin' IEI stereotype. Though most Fours are IEI's, some Fours look like rednecks, pretty much like this :

http://www.hobos8ns.com/Pics/Redneck.gif

You can notice the hostile nature (S-) and the lack of motivation (D-) of this caricature.

Other Fours look like observers (ILI's), and may be mistyped as Fives.

Other Fours may even look like drama queens, and may look like CP Sixes.

Not all Fours are IEI's. That's shitfuck. However, you're not wrong, because only one case isn't enough to validate the existence of such LSE's.

However I don't give a shitfuck

[implied]

Why do you think "she's at least" a Logical Extratim type? I don't know why you think her Fe could be deemed false either. Can Barack Obama's Fe be deemed false? Ronald Regan? Hamlet?

i don't think the issue is barack obama's fe or hamlet's fe or reagan's fe. she doesn't really strike me as all that emotionally controlled which i think could be a sort of estj fe role thing. wrt si, a quick look at her entry on wikipedia gives a lot of evidence for a rather EJ-Si lifestyle and general workaholism. sort of reminds me of aut0. at any rate, i don't wish to provide much more evidence for her type because honestly i'm not sure i give a shit enough to spend my time convincing you.

ah, fwiw, i do agree with most of the stuff machintruc wrote. i do think she looks and comes off as rather emotionless despite some apparent high excitability, which imo isn't anything that doesn't fit well with having an IJ-Fi dual ("His most important capability is his ability to adapt to his partner’s emotions, to empathize, release emotional tension, to calm down.") i think that's fine for milla.

[marooned]

@Machintruc: I thought IEI 4s were rednecks, because I'm certain you've said that either 4s or IEIs or the 4-6-8 triad, or all of the above are rednecks before. It's seems that you arbitrarily define all sorts of people as rednecks whenever it suits you. I realize this is "bold" and "shocking" of you.

[machintruc]

@Machintruc: I thought IEI 4s were rednecks, because I'm certain you've said that either 4s or IEIs or the 4-6-8 triad, or all of the above are rednecks before. It's seems that you arbitrarily define all sorts of people as rednecks whenever it suits you. I realize this is "bold" and "shocking" of you.

Actually, I was talking about SEI's. Not IEI's.

It's like some stock character : SEI --- would fit the "redneck" stereotype, where SEE +-+ would fit the "femme fatale" stereotype or LSI 0-0 the "bureaucrat" stereotype or such.

[marooned]

Oops, I skimmed too much.

[Ezra]

Fine. How is Milla Jovovich a Two?

And Fours can be Extratims. EIEs and IEEs - I bet some of them are Fours.

[Christy B]

Fine. How is Milla Jovovich a Two?

And Fours can be Extratims. EIEs and IEEs - I bet some of them are Fours.

I know at least two ESFP fours

[Phaedrus]

I know at least two ESFP fours

No, no, no. It's so depressing that people simply refuse to learn and insist on sticking to ignorance. You simply don't know any ESFP Fours, because no such person exists in the world. It is completely impossible to be a Four if you are an ESFP. How can you allow yourself to be so wrong?

[misutii]

And Fours can be Extratims. EIEs and IEEs - I bet some of them are Fours.

I doubt this, they may have 4 wing (i.e. 3w4) but I don't think they can actually be 4s (only INFps, some INFjs(Ne subtype), and maybe some ISFps-Fe subtype)

[theMime.]

Isn't the enneagram a theory of nurture not nature? I mean don't our enneagram types stem from things in our childhood?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Isn't the enneagram a theory of nurture not nature? I mean don't our enneagram types stem from things in our childhood?

I don't think you allowed to say things like that.

[Phaedrus]

Isn't the enneagram a theory of nurture not nature? I mean don't our enneagram types stem from things in our childhood?

Many Enneagram theorists seem to believe that, and they tend to explain the type differences in a "nurture" framework, due to childhood experiences and such. It's a similar situation if you study personality disorders, which are traditionally explained in a psychoanalytical "nurture" framework too. But the problem with using such explanatory frameworks to explain differences in personality is that they are all false.

We simply know that most of our personality traits, the most fundamental differences that we study in Socionics, the Enneagram, the Big Five, etc., are all nature. The types they describe, the behaviours they describe, are correct, but the theoretical explanations for them are false.

[theMime.]

Many Enneagram theorists seem to believe that, and they tend to explain the type differences in a "nurture" framework, due to childhood experiences and such. It's a similar situation if you study personality disorders, which are traditionally explained in a psychoanalytical "nurture" framework too. But the problem with using such explanatory frameworks to explain differences in personality is that they are all false.

We simply know that most of our personality traits, the most fundamental differences that we study in Socionics, the Enneagram, the Big Five, etc., are all nature. The types they describe, the behaviours they describe, are correct, but the theoretical explanations for them are false.

well ok.

But I'm still an SEI enneagram 4.

[Phaedrus]

well ok.

But I'm still an SEI enneagram 4.

No, absolutely not. Why do you refuse to see the truth? How can you be so sure that you are an E4? How can you be so sure that you are a SEI? Because if you are equally sure of both of those typings, then you don't realize that they contradict each other. If you are a SEI, then you are a 9. If you are a 4, then you are most likely an INFp. So either way, you are clearly mistyped one way or the other. You should try to determine your correct socionic type, using your identifications with 4 and/or 9 as a comparison.

[Creepy-bg]

No, absolutely not. Why do you refuse to see the truth? How can you be so sure that you are an E4? How can you be so sure that you are a SEI? Because if you are equally sure of both of those typings, then you don't realize that they contradict each other. If you are a SEI, then you are a 9. If you are a 4, then you are most likely an INFp. So either way, you are clearly mistyped one way or the other. You should try to determine your correct socionic type, using your identifications with 4 and/or 9 as a comparison.

or you're just wrong... that sounds simpler

[Phaedrus]

or you're just wrong... that sounds simpler

It may sound simpler, but that is irrelevant because I am telling you the truth about the correlations between the socionic types and the enneatypes here. If you prefer to ignore the truth, there is not much I can do about it other than loose my respect for your intellectual integrity. You are yourself unquestionably a 9 -- at least you and I can agree on that, can't we?

[Creepy-bg]

It may sound simpler, but that is irrelevant because I am telling you the truth about the correlations between the socionic types and the enneatypes here. If you prefer to ignore the truth, there is not much I can do about it other than loose my respect for your intellectual integrity. You are yourself unquestionably a 9 -- at least you and I can agree on that, can't we?

i could quite possibly be a 2 as well. and the correlations between socionic types and enneatypes is not set in stone. I can only assume that your using your own understanding and research into the matter... in which case I'd be a fool to take someone on the internets word for it (not meant as disrespect towards you)

[Phaedrus]

i could quite possibly be a 2 as well.

You identify with type 2 to the extent that you identify with your creative , because the 2 is the prototypical type in the Enneagram. You identify with type 9 to the extent that you identify with your IP temperament, because the 9 is the prototypical IP type in the Ennneagram. But since type 9 is also clearly an F type, you will have both the your ethicalness and your temperement taken care of if you choose type 9 as your natural home.

[Ezra]

I know at least two ESFP fours

No, no, no. It's so depressing that people simply refuse to learn and insist on sticking to ignorance. You simply don't know any ESFP Fours, because no such person exists in the world. It is completely impossible to be a Four if you are an ESFP. How can you allow yourself to be so wrong?

Phaedrus said it. Admittedly, he's more dogmatic and gives no reasoning for his conclusions, but essentially I would've said the same thing as he.

I doubt this, they may have 4 wing (i.e. 3w4) but I don't think they can actually be 4s (only INFps, some INFjs(Ne subtype), and maybe some ISFps-Fe subtype)

You're doing a Phaedrus. Why can Fours not be IEEs or EIEs? If you successfully explain this to me, you might convince me. Throwing some judgements and opinions in my face isn't going to convince me, nor should it convince anyone who has any capacity to reason.

Isn't the enneagram a theory of nurture not nature? I mean don't our enneagram types stem from things in our childhood?

There's controversy over this. What Phaedrus says is true to some extent, although I think it's the other way round; I think a lot of Enneagram theorists, most notably R&H, actually believe type is inherent, although the Childhood Pattern of which they speak forms how an individual may react later on in life. To me, this was once bullshit speak for "type is nurtured", and I thought they were simply afraid to admit it. But I've come to realise that as an Eight, certain tendencies in me simply can't be explained by the way I've been brought up; that is, there are characteristics in me affiliated with the Eight, but which are entirely natural and unnurtured.

We simply know that most of our personality traits, the most fundamental differences that we study in Socionics, the Enneagram, the Big Five, etc., are all nature. The types they describe, the behaviours they describe, are correct, but the theoretical explanations for them are false.

Evidence? I'd say it was all theoretical.

or you're just wrong... that sounds simpler

Nice.

theMime., have you considered type Seven?