Results 1 to 40 of 40

Thread: Enneagram type 5w4s

  1. #1
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Enneagram type 5w4s

    I consider myself to be a five with a four wing in particular.

    I've heard tell that INTjs and INFjs cannot type as 5w4s - Phaedrus said it, and it was so. I could conceivably be a 4w5, but when reading multiple descriptions, the 5w4 description is less problematic. I'm not a 9 either...too cheerful. Bloody enneagram.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  2. #2
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimosa Pudica View Post
    Why do you consider yourself a 5w4?
    I reckon that I'm more in my head and more independent than a 4w5 might be, and perhaps more aesthetically-inclined and more wishy-washy than a 5w6.

  3. #3
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I know I'm a 5w4 and an INTj, and to be honest I don't know how someone could be an INTj or ENTp without seeing resemblances in 4. Most INTps that call themselves INTp 5w4 aren't INTps. They are just going off of what this forum says that INTps are.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  4. #4
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    For some reason the people here think that INTjs are robots or some stupid shit, in which case mentally they are probably more fluid then the majority of the other types. Idiosyncratic is the best word to describe an Alpha NT. We analyze , not systematize. We sort of have "x-ray vision" as Gulenko calls it. We see things for what they really are, we see through the stereotypes. Anyone that thinks that INTjs are systematizing, rule creating type of people need to review their socionics.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subterranean View Post
    I consider myself to be a five with a four wing in particular.

    I've heard tell that INTjs and INFjs cannot type as 5w4s - Phaedrus said it, and it was so. I could conceivably be a 4w5, but when reading multiple descriptions, the 5w4 description is less problematic. I'm not a 9 either...too cheerful. Bloody enneagram.
    4w5 makes sense for you, if you are an INFj.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    I know I'm a 5w4 and an INTj, and to be honest I don't know how someone could be an INTj or ENTp without seeing resemblances in 4.
    This is new interesting stuff. I know that you have talked about 5w4s in the past, for example on SG's forum, but I had missed that you was so sure that you are a 5w4 yourself. Since it is a proven fact that you are not an INTj (V.I., body type, IP (or maybe EP) temperament, etc.), it has now become even more likely that you are actually an INTp.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Most INTps that call themselves INTp 5w4 aren't INTps.
    Every person I know of that calls him- or herself both INTp and 5w4 are also right about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    For some reason the people here think that INTjs are robots or some stupid shit, in which case mentally they are probably more fluid then the majority of the other types.
    They are not as robotic as ISTjs. The INTjs often identify with their creative and are good at using it. But every INTj has an IJ temperament.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Idiosyncratic is the best word to describe an Alpha NT. We analyze , not systematize.
    Exactly. And that's why an INTj analyst is not a synthezising 5w4 but instead an analyzing 5w6 (if not a 1).

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    We sort of have "x-ray vision" as Gulenko calls it. We see things for what they really are, we see through the stereotypes.
    But this is absolutely false to say about INTjs. They are known for not seeing things as they really are -- that is the sad nature of leading with creative . The bolded part is a very accurate description of the objective INTps however.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    Anyone that thinks that INTjs are systematizing, rule creating type of people need to review their socionics.
    Anyone who thinks that INTjs are not the most theoretical and the most systems building of all the types is an idiot. It's all in the socionics material. Everyone with some knowledge agrees that INTjs create theoretical models (often with very little connection to objective reality). And the INTjs want to implement their theoretical models/systems, that's why they are usually rather practically minded too.
    Last edited by Phaedrus; 07-31-2008 at 08:53 AM.

  7. #7
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Phaedrus, I am glad that the filth that you try to pass for truth is on the non-Socionics subforum where it belongs.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,983
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hitta
    For some reason the people here think that INTjs are robots or some stupid shit, in which case mentally they are probably more fluid then the majority of the other types. Idiosyncratic is the best word to describe an Alpha NT. We analyze , not systematize. We sort of have "x-ray vision" as Gulenko calls it. We see things for what they really are, we see through the stereotypes. Anyone that thinks that INTjs are systematizing, rule creating type of people need to review their socionics.
    I agree. Thank you. Very well said.

  9. #9
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,321
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I can see INTj and 5w4 for you, Sub. I def. think you're more INTj than INTp. Not that I know you all that well but I find your comments often hilariously random and creatively insightful.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, people should be aware of the fact that of the people that is spreading bullshit around here, at least labcoat is not an INTj. It is actually quite possible that no one of the "INTjs" that has posted so far in this thread really is an INTj.

    It's a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it? The socionic LII type descriptions seem to function like magnets, attracting other types as well. That is because those type descriptions are misleading and should be improved, but the question is how exactly. Though it is a certainty that this forum has way too many "INTjs" among its members.

  11. #11
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redbaron View Post
    I can see INTj and 5w4 for you, Sub. I def. think you're more INTj than INTp.
    I also think I'm more likely to be an INFp than an INTp, and yet I think the 5w4 descriptions are more me than the 4w5 descriptions.

  12. #12
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    What a mess

  13. #13
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by esper View Post
    I could see it. An INTJ could concievably have a 5 fixation (over analyzing, over objectifying, etc. etc.). I don't see why can't fixate on identity issues as well. I've read of 5w4s being called "perfectionists" of their craft to perfectly express their identity, and I've also heard of perfectionism assocated with rational temperament, so it could work.

    Besides, in many cases Enneagram experts agree that a type can have both wings, the idea that each type inherently has touches of both wings in it. So needless to say the idea is not without merit.
    This is interesting, but not exactly reassuring . (Seems a little imprecise).
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  14. #14
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Well, people should be aware of the fact that of the people that is spreading bullshit around here, at least labcoat is not an INTj. It is actually quite possible that no one of the "INTjs" that has posted so far in this thread really is an INTj.

    It's a fascinating phenomenon, isn't it? The socionic LII type descriptions seem to function like magnets, attracting other types as well. That is because those type descriptions are misleading and should be improved, but the question is how exactly. Though it is a certainty that this forum has way too many "INTjs" among its members.
    If you had it your way, you would "improve" it by making all LIIs sound like utter idiots. And what of the people who are incorrectly attracted to the ILI description, like yourself?
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    If you had it your way, you would "improve" it by making all LIIs sound like utter idiots.
    As most of the type profiles now stand they are glorifying the LII in a way that does not correspond with reality. Jung had a correct understanding of , but unfortunately that understanding is somewhat absent in many socionic LII profiles.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    And what of the people who are incorrectly attracted to the ILI description, like yourself?
    Like so many other ILIs I was at first more attracted to the LII descriptions. The difference between me and some other ILIs is that I did a more thorough research and found out the truth. The only totally obvious and absolutely indisputably clear LIIs on this forum (viewed from my perspective) are tcaudilllg and Huitzilopochtli. There are probably other LIIs as well, but they are not as easy to spot in a crowd consisting of so many mistyped "LIIs".

  16. #16
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    As most of the type profiles now stand they are glorifying the LII in a way that does not correspond with reality. Jung had a correct understanding of , but unfortunately that understanding is somewhat absent in many socionic LII profiles.
    The extent to which type glorifies the LII is much less than the extent to which you try to belittle and paint them with stupidity. Jung has an outdated understanding of .

    Like so many other ILIs I was at first more attracted to the LII descriptions. The difference between me and some other ILIs is that I did a more thorough research and found out the truth. The only totally obvious and absolutely indisputably clear LIIs on this forum (viewed from my perspective) are tcaudilllg and Huitzilopochtli. There are probably other LIIs as well, but they are not as easy to spot in a crowd consisting of so many mistyped "LIIs".
    Remove the needle from your own eye first, LSI.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  17. #17
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by esper View Post
    I could see it. An INTJ could concievably have a 5 fixation (over analyzing, over objectifying, etc. etc.). I don't see why can't fixate on identity issues as well. I've read of 5w4s being called "perfectionists" of their craft to perfectly express their identity, and I've also heard of perfectionism assocated with rational temperament, so it could work.

    Besides, in many cases Enneagram experts agree that a type can have both wings, the idea that each type inherently has touches of both wings in it. So needless to say the idea is not without merit.
    Thats the most beautiful thing I think I've ever heard anyone say on this forum.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  18. #18
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Phaedrus, may I ask you an honest question? I'm just curious and am not being sarcastic or disparaging. But why do you believe that Jung's description matches reality better than the socionics descriptions? It seems to be the linchpin for your case about Ti.

    Thank you
    Jung would laugh at Phaedrus' interpretation of types and functions.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  19. #19

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Phaedrus, may I ask you an honest question? I'm just curious and am not being sarcastic or disparaging. But why do you believe that Jung's description matches reality better than the socionics descriptions?
    Because I have compared the real types with the descriptions of the types and the descriptions of the functions. From my own empirical observations of INTjs I know that Jung's description of Ti is more accurate in at least one very important sense than the socionic Ti descriptions. Jung understood Ti in a way that is closer to how INTJs are described in MBTT, and that is the correct way to understand INTjs and .

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    The extent to which type glorifies the LII is much less than the extent to which you try to belittle and paint them with stupidity.
    No. ILIs look stupid in the eyes of an LII, and LIIs look stupid in the eyes of an ILI. There's nothing strange about that from a socionic perspective, because that is exactly what we should expect from a Quasi-Identical relation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Jung has an outdated understanding of .
    From a common socionic perspective -- yes. And that is what's wrong with the socionic descriptions of , because Jung's understanding is closer to what INTjs are like in real life. And remember that Jung was an INTj himself (that is now a proven fact -- look at the videos where Jung is interviewed if you're still in doubt about his correct type). The problem with the socionic descriptions is that they lead to mistypings. We see that irritating phenomenon over and over again, not the least on this forum.

  21. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    Very well. Then it's because of your own empirical observations...
    Which are also perfectly in line with how the socionic types are described in the literature. The correctness of my understanding of the types, including the INTj, is confirmed not only by my own empirical observations and real life encounters with the types, but also by the socionic type descriptions and Reinin dichotomies.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    This "very important sense" in which MBTT-Ti and differ, is that MBTT-Ti is more subjective.
    Absolutely not. MBTT-Ti is more objective, because MBTT-Ti is a mixture of and with a grain of too. MBTT INTPs are described as objective in the exact same sense as socionic ILIs are described as objective. is not objective, but it is often incorrectly described in a way that can give people the false idea that LIIs and are objective. LIIs and MBTT INTJs are both subjective in the same sense as Jung has described the nature of Ti and Ti types.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    What are your criteria for defining "subjectivity"? Why is it even consistent with Jung's interpretation?
    In the context of Socionics I use the term "subjectivity" in the same way Jung used it, which is the same sense in Reinin's Subjectivist/Objectivist dichotomy. Every serious socionist should know what is meant by being a Subjectivist and what is meant by saying that is subjective in contrast to the objectivity of . Have you not read Jung's Psychological Types where all of this is explained?

    It is ridiculous that I should have to defend what is common knowledge in Socionics and that people don't know the basics. Why the hell can't you study the most simple texts and understand them correctly, you idiots?

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    Why don't you believe that is subjective, just as Jung mentioned repeatedly in his psychological types essay? ie. both functions "map out the inner world of archetypes"... cant get more subjective than that.
    I have never said that is not subjective. I have said that is objective, and that ILIs are objective in comparison with the subjective LIIs. And that is just the facts. You can't dispute it because it is basic knowledge about the socionic types. It is their creative that makes the ILIs objective, not their . All of this is verified by empirical observations of the attitudes and behaviours of the types in real life, and it is also described in the type profiles.

  22. #22
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    WTF happened.... i didn't quote Jxrtes I quoted Phaedrus. It keeps not quoting him.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  23. #23
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    No. ILIs look stupid in the eyes of an LII, and LIIs look stupid in the eyes of an ILI. There's nothing strange about that from a socionic perspective, because that is exactly what we should expect from a Quasi-Identical relation.
    ILIs do not look stupid in my eyes, but you certainly do, though you are hardly an ILI anyway.

    From a common socionic perspective -- yes. And that is what's wrong with the socionic descriptions of , because Jung's understanding is closer to what INTjs are like in real life. And remember that Jung was an INTj himself (that is now a proven fact -- look at the videos where Jung is interviewed if you're still in doubt about his correct type). The problem with the socionic descriptions is that they lead to mistypings. We see that irritating phenomenon over and over again, not the least on this forum.
    Why do you continue to try and force squares posts into round holes? Jung's understanding of is NOT closer to INTjs in real life.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  24. #24
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,009
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    ILIs do not look stupid in my eyes, but you certainly do, though you are hardly an ILI anyway.

    Why do you continue to try and force squares posts into round holes? Jung's understanding of is NOT closer to INTjs in real life.
    Lol, thats exactly my thoughts.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos View Post
    ILIs do not look stupid in my eyes, but you certainly do, though you are hardly an ILI anyway.
    You are proving my point. And what I said is the truth about Quasi-Identical relations. Are you trying to hide this truth from other people by implying that you disagree with the socionic desriptions of Quasi-Identity?

    Quote Originally Posted by Logos
    Jung's understanding of is NOT closer to INTjs in real life.
    Jung describes the true nature of Ti, and what he says about it describes CORRECTLY the thinking of INTjs. I have seen it myself, so I know that it's true. And besides it is also PERFECTLY in line with how INTjs are described by socionists. Immanuel Kant is a perfect example, as pointed out by Jung by the way. Tcaudilllg and Huitzilopochtli are two other clear examples of how manifests itself in the style and content of a person's writing. Phenomenology is in itself also an extremely obvious example of thinking.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes View Post
    No, I disagree. The reason for the ongoing conflict is because the socionics literature mentions something quite different from what you mention...
    Prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    In fact, you're using a rogue version of socionics.
    I have studied the types in real life, and I have compared them with how the types are described in Socionics. I know that I have made no mistake in grouping them into the correct type boxes, because everything fits, especially V.I., which is the most important aspect to consider here. There's no way that I can be wrong about the types, which means that if you disagree with me, you are necessarily wrong. You have misunderstood one or two things in the material you have read.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    Even you admitted this in some earlier posts when you claimed that socionics was logically wrong about certain things and that you were correct.
    What exactly have I said that Socionics is logically wrong about? I can't recall that I have ever stated that it must be. But if you and others disagree with me, then of course either you haven't understood Socionics or (if we should decide to call your version of Socionics "correct") we have at least two versions of Socionics that are logically incompatible. The easiest way out of this problem is to say that you have simply misunderstood Socionics and the types. My understanding of the types is absolutely correct overall, so it is very likely that you are wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    This is highly debateable.
    No, it is not debatable. I don't know why I keep up with having these stupid, low-level discussions with people who haven't studied the basics. It is totally pointless to debate this if you refuse to check the references. Haven't you read ANYTHING of importance when it comes to the types?

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    Jung never said anything about an relativism/absolutism split.
    Not directly, but it is a totally obvious and necessary logical implication of what he said. I am an expert on this, you are not. I have studied philosophy for decades, you have not. You either have to trust that what I say is the truth or start to study, compare, analyze, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    Even so, Jung was clearly wrong about many aspects of Ti and INTjs.
    Specify and elaborate.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    You still haven't given me facts about why the current version of Ti is wrong, (or even very good theoretical arguments), other than your personal experience and alleged skillz at socionics.
    It is not wrong if you understand it correctly. I have said that the descriptions are misleading because you and others continue to misinterpret what is written about . You are mislead to think in the wrong directions because of those descriptions. And you get an incorrect understanding of the INTj type. It's so boring to have to witness this mess all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    If I'm going to accept your opinion, you had better give me something tangible to work with.
    Start with the chapters on Te and Ti in Jung's Psychological Types. Tell me what you think is wrong about how Ti (and Te) are from a socionic perspective. That could be a start.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    And while we're on the subject, tell me why you would so readily accept something as utterly hypothetical (and mostly wrong btw) as the Reinin dichotomies to bolster your empirical case?
    The Reinin dichotomies are redundant. I don't accept any Reinin dichotomy that is not confirmed by empirical observations. But I can see very clearly that many of them coincide with how the types are in real life, and that is not likely a coincident. I have mostly talked about the Subjectvist/Objectivist dichotomy, and that one is very important and perfectly true as a dividing line between INTjs and INTps. You simply have to accept it at least in that case.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    (If the answer is that it's from your personal "empirical" observations, I'm going to go shoot myself).
    It is also confirmed by the type descriptions, including the ones from MBTT.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    You process nearly everything through your base function... like 95% of the datastream. If not, then tell me why ILIs can believe in something as subjective as spirituality/mysticism? This is EXPLICITLY stated in many of the ILI type descriptions.
    ILIs don't believe in spirituality/mysticism. It's a complete myth that they do, and that myth stems from the false assumption that Jung (who was the ultimate believer in spirituality and mysticism) was an ILI. As I have said, Jung was not an ILI but an LII, and he didn't understand ILIs very well (for obvious reasons).

    Even Rick admits that the empirical evidence does not support the claim that ILIs are drawn to, or identify with, spirituality/mysticism. There is NO evidence for such a claim, and yet socionists are spreading around this bullshit.

    It is an indisputable fact that LIIs are much more prone to embrace spirituality/mysticism, theism, and other superstitious beliefs than ILIs. And that is exactly what the theory suggests too, because LIIs are much more averse to empirical facts than ILIs.

    ILIs are empirically minded and drawn to "positivistic" attitudes towards science in general, whereas LIIs tend to criticize positivistic, objectifying, reductionistic science for being inhuman, for reducing humans to "objects", etc. LIIs are drawn to phenomenology, hermenutics, and other relativistic and subjectivistic perspectives. The overall pattern is extremely clear here. You simply have to study more if you don't see it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    Belief in spirituality isn't exactly a "Humean" treatment of anything.
    Exactly. Hume was ego, and the whole empirical tradition in philosophy stems from Hume. Logical positivism, various forms of naturalism, objectivistic perspectives -- ALL of that is .

    The continental tradition in philosophy, stemming from Kant, including various forms of non-naturalism, subjectivism, and relativism, various attempts to clearly separate the natural sciences from the study of man as a human being, as a "subject" and as an "agent", various forms of historicism -- ALL of that is . If you have studied philosophy, you know that INTjs and other thinkers have tended to believe in God. INTjs tend to be theists, whereas INTps tend to atheists. It is clear as day that is much closer to spirituality/mysticism than .

    Quote Originally Posted by jxrtes
    Also, incidently, wouldn't this make ENTjs like possibly Expat and ESTjs (extraverted thinkers) consistently more Humean, and therefore more correct than you are by your own standards?
    thinkers in general are more correct than thinkers. Hume himself was probably an ILI, but it doesn't really matter. Both ENTjs and INTps are drawn to similar perspectives on science and the study of man and nature. Both ENTjs and INTps are objectivists, they are critical towards relativistic ideas, they are strongly empirical, and they prefer the "hard facts" to mumbo-jumbo. That's why INTjs are our born enemies when it comes to philosophy and science.

    From our perspective INTjs are unscientific and superstitious. From the INTj's perspective we are too reactionary, too reductionistic, too "cruel", too inhuman, too market-oriented, too focused on empirical facts, etc.

  27. #27
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    You are proving my point. And what I said is the truth about Quasi-Identical relations. Are you trying to hide this truth from other people by implying that you disagree with the socionic desriptions of Quasi-Identity?
    Hardly. Many of the other ILIs (niffweed, salawa, reyn_til_runa, etc.) I have no problem with and do not find them dumb in the slightest. You are the only "ILI" with which I have a consistent problem, so saying that I'm proving your point is highly questionable evidentially and logically.

    Jung describes the true nature of Ti, and what he says about it describes CORRECTLY the thinking of INTjs. I have seen it myself, so I know that it's true. And besides it is also PERFECTLY in line with how INTjs are described by socionists. Immanuel Kant is a perfect example, as pointed out by Jung by the way. Tcaudilllg and Huitzilopochtli are two other clear examples of how manifests itself in the style and content of a person's writing. Phenomenology is in itself also an extremely obvious example of thinking.
    You just repeat yourself like a broken record (one circular argument after another) without proving anything successfully.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  28. #28
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,406
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    It is an indisputable fact that LIIs are much more prone to embrace spirituality/mysticism, theism, and other superstitious beliefs than ILIs. And that is exactly what the theory suggests too, because LIIs are much more averse to empirical facts than ILIs.

    ILIs are empirically minded and drawn to "positivistic" attitudes towards science in general, whereas LIIs tend to criticize positivistic, objectifying, reductionistic science for being inhuman, for reducing humans to "objects", etc. LIIs are drawn to phenomenology, hermenutics, and other relativistic and subjectivistic perspectives. The overall pattern is extremely clear here. You simply have to study more if you don't see it.

    Exactly. Hume was ego, and the whole empirical tradition in philosophy stems from Hume. Logical positivism, various forms of naturalism, objectivistic perspectives -- ALL of that is .

    The continental tradition in philosophy, stemming from Kant, including various forms of non-naturalism, subjectivism, and relativism, various attempts to clearly separate the natural sciences from the study of man as a human being, as a "subject" and as an "agent", various forms of historicism -- ALL of that is . If you have studied philosophy, you know that INTjs and other thinkers have tended to believe in God. INTjs tend to be theists, whereas INTps tend to atheists. It is clear as day that is much closer to spirituality/mysticism than .

    thinkers in general are more correct than thinkers. Hume himself was probably an ILI, but it doesn't really matter. Both ENTjs and INTps are drawn to similar perspectives on science and the study of man and nature. Both ENTjs and INTps are objectivists, they are critical towards relativistic ideas, they are strongly empirical, and they prefer the "hard facts" to mumbo-jumbo. That's why INTjs are our born enemies when it comes to philosophy and science.

    From our perspective INTjs are unscientific and superstitious. From the INTj's perspective we are too reactionary, too reductionistic, too "cruel", too inhuman, too market-oriented, too focused on empirical facts, etc.
    Oh, what great myths you create to maintain your elaborate lies...
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  29. #29
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think that the 9w1 description at the lifeexplore does fit me somewhat, but the 5w4 description fits me better. I was hardly a model child in the sense I did everything to please my parents - I was simply self-absorbed and withdrawn. And I don't have a sense of mission that involves working hard for others, though I would like to. Otherwise, they both fit me well.

    9w1:
    Tend to have been "model children." Instinctively worked to please their parents by being virtuous, orderly, and little trouble. When awakened, they have great moral authority plus good-hearted peacemaking tendencies. Often have a sense of mission, public or private, that involves working hard for the welfare of everyone they are committed to. Principled expression of love. Desire to contribute, do little harm. May be well-liked, modest, endearing, gentle yet firm. Some have great grace and composure with bursts of spontaneity and sweetness. Elegant simplicity. When entranced, they tend to be self-neglectful. May go passively dead and operate from a dubious, fractured morality. Dutiful to what they shouldn't be. Play the good child, disappear into contexts, settle for being overlooked or just partly recognized. Passive tolerance of absurd or damaging situations. One-sided relationships where the Nine gives too much. Rationalize, minimize, tell themselves they had a great childhood, everything's fine. Placid numbness creeps over them. Intolerance of their own emotions. Gradually deaden their soul.
    5w4:
    The difference between the 4 wing and the 6 wing in Fives is like the difference between Art and Science. 4 wing brings an abstract, intuitive cast of thought, as though the Five were thinking in geometric shapes instead of words or realistic images. May be talented artistically and inhabit moods like Fours do. Combine intellectual and emotional imagination. Enjoy the realm of philosophy and beautiful constructs of thought. The marriage of mental perspective and aesthetics is the best of life for them. When more defensive may seem a little ghostly, have a whisper in their voice. Fluctuate between impersonal withdrawal and bursts of friendly caring. Can get floaty and abstract. Act like they're inside a bubble, sometimes with an air of implicit superiority. Cliché of the "absentminded professor" applies especially to Fives with this wing. Environmentally sensitive and subject at times to total overwhelm. Touchy about criticism. Can be slow to recover from traumatic events. Melancholy isolation and bleak existential depression are possible pitfalls.

  30. #30
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I am wondering about the description of 5w4 types as: "The difference between the 4 wing and the 6 wing in Fives is like the difference between Art and Science. 4 wing brings an abstract, intuitive cast of thought, as though the Five were thinking in geometric shapes instead of words or realistic images."

    For me to say that I "think geometric shapes instead of words or realistic images" seems like a lazy indulgence, being unable to verbalise my thoughts due to sheer lack of ability. But from my self-typing as a -leading type, and/or a -ego type, I have been considering whether assessing and weighing up thoughts in the way I do could be a process where I find balance through maintaining internal harmony (and perhaps aesthetic appeal, as the description alludes to). I find that I generally like to have solid, crystalised conclusions (even if a conclusion is that I know nothing), and perhaps when I ponder on them and explain them to others, I have generalisations and approximations. Establishing conclusions makes me feel prepared, and always gives me a starting point, even if I later alter them somewhat in real-time.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  31. #31
    Denn wir haben hier keine bleibende Statt entelecheia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    torn between the light and dark
    TIM
    FVLE
    Posts
    2,323
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Subteigh, I still think you're 5w4. You don't come off like someone who blends into everything and is just calm and apathetic all the time at all. 4w5 maybe since your tritype appears to definitely be 4-5-1 and that's the most "5-ish".

  32. #32
    Poster Nutbag The Exception's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    my own personal bubble
    TIM
    LII-Ne
    Posts
    4,108
    Mentioned
    94 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    [QUOTE=Verbrannte;1162943]Subteigh, I still think you're 5w4. You don't come off like someone who blends into everything and is just calm and apathetic all the time at all. 4w5 maybe since your tritype appears to definitely be 4-5-1 and that's the most "5-ish".[/QUOTE

    I don't mean to hijack Subteigh's thread here, but I've been thinking alot about my own enneagram type lately and I struggle between 5 and 9 for myself as well. Many people have typed me as a 9 because I appear rather calm and easygoing to them. I also hate conflict but if necessary I can confront it. The bolded statement above is why I doubt I am a true 9. I may appear 'calm' on the outside to people but on the inside I'm far more anxious and intense. I'm anything but apathetic.
    LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP



  33. #33
    Hedgehog in the Fog myshkin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    EII-Fi 1w9 sp/so
    Posts
    1,251
    Mentioned
    148 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chips and underwear View Post
    I don't mean to hijack Subteigh's thread here, but I've been thinking alot about my own enneagram type lately and I struggle between 5 and 9 for myself as well. Many people have typed me as a 9 because I appear rather calm and easygoing to them. I also hate conflict but if necessary I can confront it. The bolded statement above is why I doubt I am a true 9. I may appear 'calm' on the outside to people but on the inside I'm far more anxious and intense. I'm anything but apathetic.
    likewise. I don't recommend focusing on superficial characteristics ("calm", "easygoing", etc — those aren't very specific). I cannot relate to E9 motivations or "method of functioning", and I believe that criteria to be more important when determining etype.


  34. #34
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verbrannte View Post
    Subteigh, I still think you're 5w4. You don't come off like someone who blends into everything and is just calm and apathetic all the time at all. 4w5 maybe since your tritype appears to definitely be 4-5-1 and that's the most "5-ish".
    I think the 1 is too worldly and none-intuitive to suit me well - this applies also to the 9, but to a lesser extent in my view - the 9 is more withdrawn from the world, more intent to maintain inner calm without interfering with the external world.

    A recent thought: I know that the 5w4 has been given descriptors such as "Iconoclast" and "Visionary", but I do not especially consider myself as either (...I am wary of reducing things to one-word appellations!), despite what others may perceive.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  35. #35
    Denn wir haben hier keine bleibende Statt entelecheia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    torn between the light and dark
    TIM
    FVLE
    Posts
    2,323
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I think the 1 is too worldly and none-intuitive to suit me well - this applies also to the 9, but to a lesser extent in my view - the 9 is more withdrawn from the world, more intent to maintain inner calm without interfering with the external world.

    A recent thought: I know that the 5w4 has been given descriptors such as "Iconoclast" and "Visionary", but I do not especially consider myself as either (...I am wary of reducing things to one-word appellations!), despite what others may perceive.
    So you're back to triple-withdrawn, introverted, and Sp-first? OK... Also, a ton of people seem to equate E9 with Jungian Si, which is about as non-intuitive as it gets IMO. And running around arguing religion doesn't seem super maintain-the-peace to me, it seems like you're deeply concerned about issues of morality. If it's not the core, it basically just sort of filters the core. I found a note in an old journal I wrote years ago where it appears my mom had people in my family do enneagram tests or something and tried to class me as E8 core for reasons explained afterwards, and I complained that I didn't want control all the time, I just didn't want to be controlled and I'm only going to fight back if you try. In retrospect, that sounds more or less like a non-core 8 to me if you use tritypes.

    So am I. It's usually misleading when people do that as well. A lot of the people who use these systems seem to want to use them to avoid Real World Experience as well as to over-simplify people rather than for any either self-improvement or science-y reasons (which are the good reasons to use these because you're not going to get that kind of information without at least a little conscious analysis and systematization). I've always said that the best way to understand human psychology is definitely not to study psychology, but literature if anything, and of course you need to, you know, actually interact with people. The human mind seems like a microcosm for everything else, and I think that's really at that needs to be said regarding people's various attempts to study and reasons for studying it.

  36. #36
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verbrannte View Post
    So you're back to triple-withdrawn, introverted, and Sp-first? OK... Also, a ton of people seem to equate E9 with Jungian Si, which is about as non-intuitive as it gets IMO. And running around arguing religion doesn't seem super maintain-the-peace to me, it seems like you're deeply concerned about issues of morality. If it's not the core, it basically just sort of filters the core. I found a note in an old journal I wrote years ago where it appears my mom had people in my family do enneagram tests or something and tried to class me as E8 core for reasons explained afterwards, and I complained that I didn't want control all the time, I just didn't want to be controlled and I'm only going to fight back if you try. In retrospect, that sounds more or less like a non-core 8 to me if you use tritypes.

    So am I. It's usually misleading when people do that as well. A lot of the people who use these systems seem to want to use them to avoid Real World Experience as well as to over-simplify people rather than for any either self-improvement or science-y reasons (which are the good reasons to use these because you're not going to get that kind of information without at least a little conscious analysis and systematization). I've always said that the best way to understand human psychology is definitely not to study psychology, but literature if anything, and of course you need to, you know, actually interact with people. The human mind seems like a microcosm for everything else, and I think that's really at that needs to be said regarding people's various attempts to study and reasons for studying it.
    I'm not especially sold on the core enneagram types, nevermind the tritypes. The various descriptions, especially with stackings on top of them, only muddle further a typology that I see no real rationale behind & which I tried to make sense of by seeing how it correlated with the Big Five and MBTI self-typings. But that of course is just a representation of feedback, with people stating how they perceive the types. This may be better than relying one individual's perception and representation, but it does not improve my view of the enneagram.

    Essentially, my enneagram self-typing is limited to "9w1 or 5w4 Sp/So", while bearing in mind that others have considered E1 as possible , and So/Sp as possible. I have had various introspections on my enneagram type and tritype in my blog and in threads such as these also: my perceptions of myself are probably rather the same as when the comments were made, even if my understanding of the types has changed. I also bear in mind that, while I do not like the tritypes in their current, undeveloped and nebulous form, based on one analysis of enneagram and MBTI type correlations, 5w4, 4w5, 1w2 may best fit INFJ and 5w4, 4w5, 8w7 may best fit INTJ. This is a large part of why I consider 5w4 as more likely for myself than the E1, and perhaps the E9, and consider 4w5 as a possible primary type. I don't consider this to be especially strong reasoning, but again, it does not seem especially bad in the circumstances either. I think there is a danger of others caring and spending more time on my enneagram type than myself: it doesn't especially bother me anymore, and is unlikely to do so again with the enneagram in its current form. I don't have a big problem with others speculating on my type for their own ends however.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  37. #37
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Verbrannte View Post
    So you're back to triple-withdrawn, introverted, and Sp-first? OK... Also, a ton of people seem to equate E9 with Jungian Si, which is about as non-intuitive as it gets IMO. And running around arguing religion doesn't seem super maintain-the-peace to me, it seems like you're deeply concerned about issues of morality. If it's not the core, it basically just sort of filters the core. I found a note in an old journal I wrote years ago where it appears my mom had people in my family do enneagram tests or something and tried to class me as E8 core for reasons explained afterwards, and I complained that I didn't want control all the time, I just didn't want to be controlled and I'm only going to fight back if you try. In retrospect, that sounds more or less like a non-core 8 to me if you use tritypes.

    So am I. It's usually misleading when people do that as well. A lot of the people who use these systems seem to want to use them to avoid Real World Experience as well as to over-simplify people rather than for any either self-improvement or science-y reasons (which are the good reasons to use these because you're not going to get that kind of information without at least a little conscious analysis and systematization). I've always said that the best way to understand human psychology is definitely not to study psychology, but literature if anything, and of course you need to, you know, actually interact with people. The human mind seems like a microcosm for everything else, and I think that's really at that needs to be said regarding people's various attempts to study and reasons for studying it.
    For me, my understanding of me being more likely to be E9 rather than E1 is that while I may be active in speaking out when something or someone disturbs my inner calm, e.g. by implying that they believe I am going to be tortured in the afterlife or for example, by stating that being willing to kill your child because god told you to is a noble thing...I consider myself primarily an insular person, i.e. a natural introvert. I do like things to be have some semblance of order, or at least, I like to have a general understanding (by things, I don't especially mean in the material world), but I don't tend to interfere unless others engage me or cause me some offence in a manner I just mentioned. This does not mean however that I cannot be neurotically temperamental.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  38. #38
    darya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    TIM
    EIE-Ni 3w4 sx
    Posts
    2,793
    Mentioned
    246 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Subteigh you're definitely not 5w4. Way too much morality, nitpicking and consistency -there's 1 somewhere (as a wing or core).

  39. #39
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,945
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    @darya when I self-typed as LII, I would have described my "moralising" as good common sense , so I am wary of the danger of certain behaviours being framed by a current narrative (whether by the person in question or by external perceivers). I think your observation is perfectly valid however, regardless of whether or not my current or future self would agree with it.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  40. #40
    Denn wir haben hier keine bleibende Statt entelecheia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    torn between the light and dark
    TIM
    FVLE
    Posts
    2,323
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    I'm not especially sold on the core enneagram types, nevermind the tritypes. The various descriptions, especially with stackings on top of them, only muddle further a typology that I see no real rationale behind & which I tried to make sense of by seeing how it correlated with the Big Five and MBTI self-typings. But that of course is just a representation of feedback, with people stating how they perceive the types. This may be better than relying one individual's perception and representation, but it does not improve my view of the enneagram.

    Essentially, my enneagram self-typing is limited to "9w1 or 5w4 Sp/So", while bearing in mind that others have considered E1 as possible , and So/Sp as possible. I have had various introspections on my enneagram type and tritype in my blog and in threads such as these also: my perceptions of myself are probably rather the same as when the comments were made, even if my understanding of the types has changed. I also bear in mind that, while I do not like the tritypes in their current, undeveloped and nebulous form, based on one analysis of enneagram and MBTI type correlations, 5w4, 4w5, 1w2 may best fit INFJ and 5w4, 4w5, 8w7 may best fit INTJ. This is a large part of why I consider 5w4 as more likely for myself than the E1, and perhaps the E9, and consider 4w5 as a possible primary type. I don't consider this to be especially strong reasoning, but again, it does not seem especially bad in the circumstances either. I think there is a danger of others caring and spending more time on my enneagram type than myself: it doesn't especially bother me anymore, and is unlikely to do so again with the enneagram in its current form. I don't have a big problem with others speculating on my type for their own ends however.
    Yeah, the whole enneagram thing seems somewhat nebulous although I can still type people (in somewhat counter-intuitive and very non-stereotypical ways) if I make a few assumptions. I wouldn't even bother using MBTI though since it's just such a bad system IMO. I've gotten basically all the types while being completely honest just based on what was true in the moment (e.g. one day I'd prefer to go to a party and another to read a book, because that's what many normal people who don't try to act out typology stereotypes are like, although there is also the odd person who just hates books or parties without typology stereotypes. In MBTI my extravert/introvert score tended to hover around 10% either direction due to their conception of extraverts as people who just have to be social all the time or else they'll have a nervous breakdown due to not having someone else around them, but introverts as recluses who need to spend all of their time aloooooone except for when they come out on the night of the full moon to hang out with one of their friends, the number of which is countable on one hand and likely doesn't even use all the fingers).

    Also, yeah, you could be a 1 core likely as well, especially if you're actually Sp-first because Sp 5 is always described as being sort of completely reclusive (So and Sx 5 much less so).
    Last edited by entelecheia; 12-24-2016 at 07:25 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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