# Thread: Possible phitypes for each IM type

1. ## Possible phitypes for each IM type

I think, there are 9 phitypes that are possible for each IM type. I estimated it by dividing the Dunbar Number (150) by the number of IM Types.

Approximately :

Code:
ILE +++ +0+ 0+- ++- +0-
SEI +-- +0- --- -0- +-0
ESE +00 ++0 +-0 00+ 0++ +-+ +0+ +++
LII 00- 0+- 000 -00 -+0 -+- -0-
EIE +00 +00 +-0 -+0 0++ 00+ +0+ +++ -+-
LSI --+ -0+ 0-0 000 0-+ +-+
SLE -++ -0+ --+ +++ +0+ +-+ ++0 00+ 0-+
IEI -+- -0- --- +-- +0- ++- 0-- 00- 0+-
SEE +++ +0+ +-+ -++ -0+ 00+ 0++ ++0
ILI 0-- 00- 0+- -+- -0- -+0 -00
LIE 00+ 0++ -+0 0+- 000 0+0 -0+ -++ +++
ESI -00 --0 -+0 000 0-0 +-0 0-+ --+ -0+ +-+
LSE 0+0 000 00+ 0-+ -+0 -0+ -+- +-0
EII 0-0 000 -00 -+0 00- 0+- -+- +0-
IEE -++ -0+ +0+ +++ -+0 -+-
SLI -00 --0 -+0 0-- 00- 0+- --+ 0-0 0-+ +--
The upper list contains valid and non-valid combinations. Tell me if you know any :

- missing valid combinations in the upper list
- present non-valid combinations in the upper list

2. darn, I keep forgetting what I was... ++-? Or was it --+?

3. what on earth is the Phitypes?

4. Originally Posted by normal
what on earth is the Phitypes?
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...del_&#37;CE%A6

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ser:Machintruc

Originally Posted by Kristiina
darn, I keep forgetting what I was... ++-? Or was it --+?
I think you're ++0 or 0++.

5. Now I see. That's fun.

6. I think I'm 00- (though the only one I'm sure about is the '-'). Is that possible for a SEI?

7. Originally Posted by machintruc
Originally Posted by Kristiina
darn, I keep forgetting what I was... ++-? Or was it --+?
I think you're ++0 or 0++.
Then I gotta be 0++ because that's EIE phitype.

But that's sure a lot of pluses you're proposing. I was sure I had at least two minuses... Maybe i was just being REALLY pessimistic and then you just saw that I have no idea how bad things COULD be and thought I was + in stead.

Oh wait-a-minute, is it really good to have a +?
Serotonin - The more you have it, the more aggressive energy you have, right? Anger, aggreession, body temperature, sexuality... The less the better? Or actually intermediate is the best here.
Norepinephrin - This is also aggression. This is the thing that makes some people sky-dive? Mhh... "Fight or flight" So some N+ types just get very strong fear reaction? Also having N+ would make people somewhat competitive? (that might just be testosterone in stead) Mhh, okay, I think I could be N+. Again, intermediate might be best here.
Dopamine - motivation, energy, feeling of pleasure. I'd say I'm - or 0. With dopamine, the more the merrier, so D+ is the winner here. (except for a possible link between dopamine levels and gambling.)

According to that, I'm more likely ++- or ++0. Still EIE though.

8. Originally Posted by Kristiina
Then I gotta be 0++ because that's EIE phitype.

But that's sure a lot of pluses you're proposing. I was sure I had at least two minuses... Maybe i was just being REALLY pessimistic and then you just saw that I have no idea how bad things COULD be and thought I was + in stead.

Oh wait-a-minute, is it really good to have a +?
Serotonin - The more you have it, the more aggressive energy you have, right? Anger, aggreession, body temperature, sexuality... The less the better? Or actually intermediate is the best here.
Norepinephrin - This is also aggression. This is the thing that makes some people sky-dive? Mhh... "Fight or flight" So some N+ types just get very strong fear reaction? Also having N+ would make people somewhat competitive? (that might just be testosterone in stead) Mhh, okay, I think I could be N+. Again, intermediate might be best here.
Dopamine - motivation, energy, feeling of pleasure. I'd say I'm - or 0. With dopamine, the more the merrier, so D+ is the winner here. (except for a possible link between dopamine levels and gambling.)

According to that, I'm more likely ++- or ++0. Still EIE though.
Btw a lot of serotonin is not conductive to anger or aggression or sexuality. In fact it is suppressive to all those three variables. Try to drink a lot of milk and I'm sure you'll feel peaceful and sleepy and not really in the mood for anything sexual.

I agree with your desc of the other two

9. I suppose it's not impossible, but an LSE -+- seems odd to me...

10. Originally Posted by Loki
I suppose it's not impossible, but an LSE -+- seems odd to me...
yah it does seem odd, a LSE that doesn't want to do anything (low dopamine) haha

11. Originally Posted by misutii
yah it does seem odd, a LSE that doesn't want to do anything (low dopamine) haha
There are LIE's with low dopamine level, but they still have dominant . They usually look like automats.

12. Originally Posted by Jem
I think I'm 00- (though the only one I'm sure about is the '-'). Is that possible for a SEI?
N0 and D- are normal for a SEI, but Are you sure you're S+ ?

13. Originally Posted by machintruc
N0 and D- are normal for a SEI, but Are you sure you're S+ ?
You mean S0? I'm definitely not S+. I could be S- though.

It's hard to tell though. Seems to me like your serotonin level would change all the time depending on your mood and health.

14. Originally Posted by Jem
You mean S0? I'm definitely not S+. I could be S- though.

It's hard to tell though. Seems to me like your serotonin level would change all the time depending on your mood and health.
On a large scale, if you're SEI, you're more likely S- than S0.

15. Originally Posted by Kristiina
Then I gotta be 0++ because that's EIE phitype.

But that's sure a lot of pluses you're proposing. I was sure I had at least two minuses... Maybe i was just being REALLY pessimistic and then you just saw that I have no idea how bad things COULD be and thought I was + in stead.

Oh wait-a-minute, is it really good to have a +?
Serotonin - The more you have it, the more aggressive energy you have, right? Anger, aggreession, body temperature, sexuality... The less the better? Or actually intermediate is the best here.
Norepinephrin - This is also aggression. This is the thing that makes some people sky-dive? Mhh... "Fight or flight" So some N+ types just get very strong fear reaction? Also having N+ would make people somewhat competitive? (that might just be testosterone in stead) Mhh, okay, I think I could be N+. Again, intermediate might be best here.
Dopamine - motivation, energy, feeling of pleasure. I'd say I'm - or 0. With dopamine, the more the merrier, so D+ is the winner here. (except for a possible link between dopamine levels and gambling.)

According to that, I'm more likely ++- or ++0. Still EIE though.
Actually, a lack of serotonin leads to confrontational behaviours, and an excess of norepinephrin leads to high-strungness.

I'm N+, and I'm not competitive or aggressive. I'm just "strung".

16. Can we be more than one phi-type ?!

17. Originally Posted by crazedrat
Can we be more than one phi-type ?!
No. You can't.

18. Originally Posted by machintruc
No. You can't.

19. Originally Posted by machintruc
Actually, a lack of serotonin leads to confrontational behaviours, and an excess of norepinephrin leads to high-strungness.

I'm N+, and I'm not competitive or aggressive. I'm just "strung".
I know one ESE who is so high strung that if she gets excited about something her head might explode... fortunately for her she has a "cooling system". Whenever she gets excited, there's noise coming out of her mouth. "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"... you know, almost like the water-boiling teapots that start whistling when water is boiling. Only louder. MUCH louder!

20. Originally Posted by Kristiina
I know one ESE who is so high strung that if she gets excited about something her head might explode... fortunately for her she has a "cooling system". Whenever she gets excited, there's noise coming out of her mouth. "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"... you know, almost like the water-boiling teapots that start whistling when water is boiling. Only louder. MUCH louder!
Many ESE's are like that. You know, N+ phitypes are mostly Extrotims.

21. Well, FWIW I'm SLI and I think I'm 0-+. So that works for me.

22. Dopamine allows you to focus on a specific task and is heavily involved in reward-processing pathways and goal-oriented behavior (S/N), is mimicked by speed (stimulant) and is inhibited by olanzapine (antipsychotic).

Serotonin
regulates sleep, moods, sexuality, appetite, anger, and 'love', and is responsible for preventing the repetition of a previously reinforced behavior (F/T), is released by ecstasy (stimulant/hallucinogen) and is absent during ecstasy withdrawal.

Norepinephrine, or 'noradrenaline', triggers alertness and fight-or-flight responses (E/I), is aggregated by ephedrine (stimulant) and is inhibited by yohimbine (aphrodisiac).

Also, realize that the neurotransmitters you have mentioned are all modulators and thus perform very different functions in different parts of the brain...for a detailed clarification of modulator functions (and especially feedback intermodulation) I highly recommend Joseph E. LeDoux's Synaptic Self.

BTW have you ever empirically tested the supposed neurotransmitter concentrations you are implicating in this particular taxonomy? A priori, I agree with most of the serotonin typings, but I would think that 1 would be low on S (self-deploring sensitization) and high on D (reward-focused behavior)...also, current research supports the idea that risk-takers (7) have low concentrations of dopamine (or weak receptors) and so take risks to stabilize the deficiency...the model is fine (aside from the 27 subtypes) but the neurotransmitter association is pretty weak.

23. Originally Posted by FDG
Btw a lot of serotonin is not conductive to anger or aggression or sexuality. In fact it is suppressive to all those three variables. Try to drink a lot of milk and I'm sure you'll feel peaceful and sleepy and not really in the mood for anything sexual.

I agree with your desc of the other two
That makes a lot of sense, serotonin helps to accommodate the unfocusing and acceptance associated with sleep, love, hunger, sex, and antidepressants (that's why 4,6=>S- and 2,9=>S+ makes sense to me; I guess it could be a measure of contentedness in general)...

24. Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
Dopamine allows you to focus on a specific task and is heavily involved in reward-processing pathways and goal-oriented behavior (S/N), is released by cocaine (O_O) and is inhibited by olanzapine (antipsychotic).
teehee

25. Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
Dopamine allows you to focus on a specific task and is heavily involved in reward-processing pathways and goal-oriented behavior (S/N), is mimicked by speed (stimulant) and is inhibited by olanzapine (antipsychotic).

Serotonin
regulates sleep, moods, sexuality, appetite, anger, and 'love', and is responsible for preventing the repetition of a previously reinforced behavior (F/T), is released by ecstasy (stimulant/hallucinogen) and is absent during ecstasy withdrawal.

Norepinephrine, or 'noradrenaline', triggers alertness and fight-or-flight responses (E/I), is aggregated by ephedrine (stimulant) and is inhibited by yohimbine (aphrodisiac).
Like Hitler was a thinker, and Gwen Stefani a flightly retard.

26. Originally Posted by Gilly
teehee

Cocaine is a reuptake inhibitor for dopamine, serotonin, and noradrenalin, so you get a little of each...

Originally Posted by machintruc
Like Hitler was a thinker, and Gwen Stefani a flightly retard.

27. Originally Posted by Huitzilopochtli
BTW have you ever empirically tested the supposed neurotransmitter concentrations you are implicating in this particular taxonomy? A priori, I agree with most of the serotonin typings, but I would think that 1 would be low on S (self-deploring sensitization) and high on D (reward-focused behavior)...also, current research supports the idea that risk-takers (7) have low concentrations of dopamine (or weak receptors) and so take risks to stabilize the deficiency...the model is fine (aside from the 27 subtypes) but the neurotransmitter association is pretty weak.
Interestingly, notice how the types that in the enneagram are thought to be the most risk-taking (leaving aside cp6 for now as an exception) are the aggressive triad - 3,7,8 - which are also thought to be high on dopamine. Also notice how 7s are described as being the most likely to e-type to get addicted to -insert name of molecule here-, which would reinforce the hypothesis of them being high on dopamine. Still your point on risk-taking behavior being characteristic of low dopamine holds. So the results are uncertain. We can also notice that 7s are both described as quick-learners and as attention-deficit prone, which are contrasting properties if we try to connect them to dopamine level.

28. I'm wondering if there's

A

your natural neurotransmitter balance... so --+ for instance doesn't mean you're deficient in S or N... only that your overall make-up works in this way... your natural mode of being is S- N- D+.

vs. B

whether due to diet or some heath issue you have an imbalance in your neurotransmitters that is screwing up your natural way of being and thus leading you to behaviors that try to account for (correct) the imbalance.

So if you're --+, AND your system has a dopamine imbalance, this doesn't change your default "phi-type" ... you're still --+. But it does put you in the position of trying to correct the imbalance (in a way that you perhaps wouldn't if you were, say -+- and your natural state is low dopamine)... hence risk-seeking behavior.

-----------------------------

Low dopamine (as a natural state) =/= Dopamine imbalance

29. Maybe it's sort of the question of... your phi-type tends to be the type you operate best at (so when you are healthy, the way you are then will match up with your phi-type).

For instance, I think my most healthy way of operating is D-. Yes my dopamine is low, but I don't need or want any more. I wouldn't work well if it weren't low. It would be too much of a physical sort of energy... I wouldn't be able to contain it with my make-up as it is. (or so I imagine) I might admire it from a far, but that's different.

30. Very good points Loki, I agree

31. this whole idea is stupid. if you wanted to use neurotransmitters to talk about personality accurately, you couldn't do it with a three symbol notation. it would be more like this: ....S+0--+-00-++-+---N=+-000-+_)+-0=-0=-)+_)D=-0=-)+_S)D_+F0=-sd0f you get the point.

32. I think I am probably -+- . I was at first inclined to think 0+- or ++-, but my moods are way too unstable and my focus far too poor to be anything but S-. Most people who have needed antidepressants should probably consider an S- type, no?

33. Originally Posted by Gilly
I think I am probably -+- . I was at first inclined to think 0+- or ++-, but my moods are way too unstable and my focus far too poor to be anything but S-. Most people who have needed antidepressants should probably consider an S- type, no?
sounds about right, considering the way SSRIs work

34. Originally Posted by Loki
perhaps, but then we wouldn't be able to talk about it at all... it's an over-simplification yes... but I still find it interesting to explore... exploring it doesn't mean it is meant as a be all and end all explanation, or that it is meant as a pillar of accuracy.

it's sort of like the valence model in chemistry... it's presented in intro chemistry and taught... but it's an over-simplification. it's there as a tool to help you understand, even though it is an over-simplification of quantum chemistry.

taking the root of something and using it as a simplification, keeps in line with the overall essence even if it undermines its complexity. it's accurate in terms of the essence of it, and largely inaccurate in other ways.
okay, so why not instead of
"I'm S-", say... "I'm kinda sluggish".
Or instead of saying "I'm N+" just say "I'm a bit anxious"..
Whats with the wording?
It's like taking an idea, and assigning it a symbol... but by doing this, you remove the possibility for further elaboration on the idea. This is pointless.
More then this, the particular symbol being used in this case suggests causation which is unfounded (mach has no idea about the brain chemistry involved in what is being described). So why make this a brain chemistry issue at all?

Like imagine if a group of people got together, and they sat down and said to eachother "instead of saying we're hungry for pizza, now we're all just gonna say the word "FLAMBALA"". And now everyone in that circles goes FLAMBALA! ... this is a useless activity, and it is a waste of time. Not only can they no longer communicate to anyone outside their circle, but FLAMBALA says nothing on what type of pizza they want to eat.

Even stupider then that, would be if the people in the circle sat down and said "okay.. instead of saying "i'm hungry for pizza", now we're gonna say "I want to sleep".. and that means "I'm hungry for pizza".
K... now that is kind of what is happening here.
If the first example was stupid, the second is alot more stupid.

35. Originally Posted by crazedrat
okay, so why not instead of
"I'm S-", say... "I'm kinda sluggish".
Or instead of saying "I'm N+" just say "I'm a bit anxious"..
Whats with the wording?
Because the S-N-D wording is more synthetic: saying "sluggish" or "anxious" is saying only one property of the whole set connected to S-N-D, because being S- does not only imply sluggishness but also a variety of other traits; the same could be said for every other neurotransmitter.

36. Why would you try to tell other people what not to do when it has no effect on you? It's like a bunch of people are having a discussion while you pass by on the street and you stop and say "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" just because you think what they're talking about is stupid. Isn't that awfully pedantic?

37. Originally Posted by Gilly
Why would you try to tell other people what not to do when it has no effect on you? It's like a bunch of people are having a discussion while you pass by on the street and you stop and say "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" just because you think what they're talking about is stupid. Isn't that awfully pedantic?
Isn't that exactly what you are doing to crazedrat (unless of course you are saying that being pedantic isn't stupid, and if it is then I am unable to understand your point)?

38. Originally Posted by FDG
Because the S-N-D wording is more synthetic: saying "sluggish" or "anxious" is saying only one property of the whole set connected to S-N-D, because being S- does not only imply sluggishness but also a variety of other traits; the same could be said for every other neurotransmitter.
So... you are devising a way to be wrong, but still feel right? lol

Like with the word FLAMBALLA meaning "I want pepperoni pizza in an hour". If I want mushroom and sausage pizza in two hours.. I just have to say that like normal. Or I can say Flamballa minus pepperoni plus mushroom plus sausage plus 1 hour. The whole activity of making up a word for a big group of words is pointless, because it only draws you further away from expressing specific points, and you can only rightly use the word in its perfect circumstance.
This makes you chronically wrong .. (i.e., the things mach are describing have either nothing to do with neurotransmitters in reality, or only are partially relevent to neurotransmitters)

39. Originally Posted by Gilly
Why would you try to tell other people what not to do when it has no effect on you? It's like a bunch of people are having a discussion while you pass by on the street and you stop and say "SHUT THE FUCK UP!" just because you think what they're talking about is stupid. Isn't that awfully pedantic?
That's actually kind of an interesting thing to say.. you know, allowing people to exist and stuff, and being mentally at peace with their existing in whatever form may be. but then at the same time your replying to me contradicts what you are saying. like if you saw the guy walk down the street screaming STFU! and you just had to stop and say.. hey dude, STFU on the STFUs!.. that doesnt make sense either. but whatever, I get what you're saying.. the implications of what you are saying would be that everyone would have to stop... talking. Or saying anything that has relevence to anyone else, and what they should be/ do in relation to you. that makes sense but only in the most morally ideal world, but i'm not sure if you are capable of imagining such a world; and even so, it doesn't exist.

40. You are taking this way too far I guess I am being a little hypocritical by telling you to not tell people what to do, but unless you really derive some strange pleasure out of telling people what to do and think about, I don't really see how I'm actually making the problem worse.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•