Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 144

Thread: Comments about making Enneagram-Socionics type correlations

  1. #1
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Comments about making Enneagram-Socionics type correlations

    Because there are so few things that are clear cut in the enneagram, it's not safe to say "X sociotype cannot be X enneagram type". "Never" or "always" or "will" or "will not" does not really exist in the enneagram; "mostly" and "probably" do though. With a system like that in which most things are not clear cut I find it better to not make cross-system conclusions on what makes sense theoretically (because the theory is not clear cut enough to do that) but on the subject of the theory! The people! There are a lot of things that make sense theoretically but in the real world they don't necessarily ring true. The only way to ever know with absolute certainty that whatever sociotype could absolutely not be whatever enneagram type would be to study every person on the planet.

    Also with the things that ARE clear cut...well lets take the assumption that an INFj cannot be an enneagram 4...the things that are clear cut when it comes to what it is to be a 4 are as follows:

    An enneagram 4 must:
    *Want/need/seek to discover or make an identity for his or her self

    Actually I can't think of anything else that is an absolute must to be an enneagram four. (If there is feel free to correct me.) All the other 4 information seemed to fall under the category of "If most of this is true for you then you are probably a four." Which of course means that each bit of information is not a requirement in itself to be a four but only one point in the direction of being a 4 IF most of those bits are true. So the only ways in which an INFj could not ever possibly be a 4 would be if:

    *Part of what is is to be an INFj is to NOT want, need, or seek to discover or make an indentity for oneself. (To my current knowledge the aforementioned statement is not in any INFj descriptions.)

    *The clear cut requirements plus any combination of most of the things that are often true for enneagram 4s are in opposition of what it is to be an INFj. (I haven't found this to be the case.)

    Because what is required for it to be impossible for an INFj to be a four does not seem to be in existence the only option for proving that would be, as I mentioned before, to research every INFj on the planet.

    All of what I just said could also be applied to 4s and ISFps. In which I feel I have a much stronger case because I know of an ISFp that is an enneagram 4!! I talked to her and she said that she has been interested in the enneagram for about a year now and has read everything about it that she can get her hands on and strongly identifies with the enneagram 4. She said that learning about enneagram 4s was an eye opening experience for her because she had been under a few delusions that fours often find themselves under and that she applied some of the advice on enneagram self-help sites and it has been helping her. In terms of percentages, she said that with all the descriptions she's read when it comes to things true for her, the enneagram four description always had the highest percentage of things that are true for her in comparison to the other enneagram descriptions.

    And actually I shouldn't have had to say most of the things in that paragraph because figuring out your E type is not rocket science!! It's usually not that hard!! If someone says they’ve done a lot of research and identify with a certain type then that alone is enough!

    I'd also like to add that although most of you seem to prefer socionics over the MBTT system, the MBTT does stand on it's own. As a whole it functions and is valid. And in this system with 16 distinct different personalities there is a great deal of variation when it comes to what MBTT type can be what enneagram type. ( Click here to see: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...14&postcount=4 ) If that same variation were in socionics I wouldn't be surprised at all. I haven't read any in depth arguments about why SEI is incompatible with E4 but I imagine that the degree in which an ISFp seems like it would not be able to be an enneagram four, an (MBTT) INTJ would seem even less likely to be able to be a four but an INTJ can be a 4 because I've spoken with one and because of evidence here: http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/typecorr.htm
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  2. #2
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Well, the more i've learned about the types, the more I can see how certain psychological types can't be certain enneagram types and vica versa.

    At present this subject no doubt come with some controversy though. So many variables to take into account, such as peoples understanding of themselves, the typologies, wither they are typed correctly on the systems etc. It probably won't be resolved to a mutual consensus anytime soon.

  3. #3
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Well, the more i've learned about the types, the more I can see how certain psychological types can't be certain enneagram types and vica versa.

    At present this subject no doubt come with some controversy though. So many variables to take into account, such as peoples understanding of themselves, the typologies, wither they are typed correctly on the systems etc. It probably won't be resolved to a mutual consensus anytime soon.
    HAHA! Do you know how frustrating it is to read you type that without fleshing out WHY you believe so?

    Do you think an INFj and an ISFp could be an enneagram 4? To be completely honest I actualy don't care about the rest. I just have a hunch about INFjs and and I know an ISFp 4 so it's incredibly annoying to hear people constantly proclaiming that an ISFp can't be a 4.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  4. #4
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    HAHA! Do you know how frustrating it is to read you type that without fleshing out WHY you believe so?
    Yes, to a point
    Do you think an INFj and an ISFp could be an enneagram 4?
    The thread is young, is the game afoot? Maybe later hehe

  5. #5
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Because socionics sites don't explicitly say "INFjs and ISFps are not concerned with their identities" or "INFjs and ISFps cannot be enneagram 4s" the only way you can convince me that an INFj or an ISFp can't be a four is if the bare minimum requirement to be a four is in opposition to those two types.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  6. #6
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    Because socionics sites don't explicitly say "INFjs and ISFps are not concerned with their identities" or "INFjs and ISFps cannot be enneagram 4s" the only way you can convince me that an INFj or an ISFp can't be a four is if the bare minimum requirement to be a four is in opposition to those two types.
    For me, I can possibly see an ISFp being a 4 if they have a strong Fe type. So if your friend is an ISFp, it's likely they are strong Fe type. You could check this out yourself by reading Filatova's sub type descriptions and seeing which one matches up.

    I think that if one reads the 4 description, what we're really reading is almost like an INFp description..ie socionic blocked with And also that we are reading someone who is an IP with creative

    You've put forward a good argument in general, and i've said something similar myself, I think I said previously that taking parts from an enneagram description is something like taking someones quote out of context and putting it in a newspaper or magazine.

    The links are interesting, however I think that these correlations come from celebrity typings, which are harder to be sure of accuracy even than individual typings over the internet. So I think the best thing is to rely on reading both typologies and seeing yourself how it applies IRL with peoples types you can be more sure of.

    Although I will say that i've focused more on some other correlations than a 4 and an ISFp/INFp, I think what i've said still makes sense. Perhaps it doesn't

  7. #7

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

    Default

    You are an idiot, Robot. You don't understand the Enneagram, so get rid of your false opinions about it. There are no ISFp 4s. Delusions, delusion, delusions ...

  8. #8
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    Show me the mimimum and tell me that an INFj can't have that be true for them and still retain their type.
    I don't have time to pull out quotes at the moment, but I might have some time later.
    Okay you found some Ni. Point it out and how much of it is there? She doesn't relate to all the mystical mumbo jumbo. She relates to everything else though which evidently is still most of the description.
    Well, re above, I don't have time at present, but I think you can verify this yourself, by reading the descriptions. End of day it's up to you to agree. I probably could convince you, but that would take time on my part to what real end?

    But what is interesting is you are saying she doesn't relate to the 'mystic mumbo jumbo.' I was under the impression that she related to all the 4 description. Perhaps this mystic mumbo jumbo she refers to is her way of describing the Ni part of it, how she views Ni from her own S dominant stand point.
    Also, I don't buy that stuff about Fe. Fi types are strong in Fe too!
    They have it as stronger unconcious function. But it's somewhat of a myth to say strong 1st and 2nd function leads to equally strong 7th and 8th function. I know some people who have definite dominant Ti but poor Te. Some types might also have the capacity to draw on these unconcious functions, but rarely if ever do.

  9. #9
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    You are an idiot, Robot. You don't understand the Enneagram, so get rid of your false opinions about it. There are no ISFp 4s. Delusions, delusion, delusions ...
    You're the idiot until you can prove with logic that I'm the idiot. Name-calling takes work, Phaedrus.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  10. #10
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You know, my next step is going to be defining what exactly the bare minimum is in clear concise terms.

    (And scrounging around in the fridge for some waffles.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  11. #11
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Waffles!

    I personally don't think SEIs can be 4s (this is just my feeling - no evidence to back it up whatsoever w00t) ... because I think an SEI's Si makes them too grounded in the here and now, in physical reality to be able to successfully go about recreating themselves identity-wise. I can see recreating their external image, behaviour etc ... but I can't even conceive of how you would go about recreating your identity as an Si-dominant type. An SEI's identity is tied up with how they relate to the world around them in a sensory way .... so in order to recreate their identity, it'd have to be a very conscious act involving deliberately ignoring their physical instincts or something - it would be more like simply acting. Which I've done in the past, but could never sustain as it tires me out exceedingly. The idea of recreating my identity certainly fascinates me, but I could never seriously entertain the idea because ... Idk - I am who I am who I am. I think that's related to my Si base. lol Reliance on my inate instincts. I don't think it's enough to say I strongly identify with the following - "Want/need/seek to discover or make an identity for his or her self" - therefore I must be a 4. I think nearly every person could relate to that to some degree at some point in their life. I mean I "want/need/seek to ...." but I've realised it's impossible for me to do. w00t I may be going out on a limb here, but I think all SEIs would come to that conclusion if they really know themselves - no matter how much they relate to that statement. I think it comes down to whether or not that motivation pretty much sums your motivations up as a person or not - and I think it can be pretty hard to separate your core motivation (if such a thing exists) from your needs/desires that have arisen from experiences in your life. So I don't think it's as easy as "read them all ... and whichever one you relate to most must be you".

  12. #12

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    You're the idiot until you can prove with logic that I'm the idiot. Name-calling takes work, Phaedrus.
    You refuse to learn, therefore you deserve no respect.

  13. #13
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Jem makes some good points here.

    As Robots ISFp friend doesn't relate to all the mystic mumbo jumbo-as she puts it, she can't be a 4.

  14. #14
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Jem makes some good points here.

    As Robots ISFp friend doesn't relate to all the mystic mumbo jumbo-as she puts it, she can't be a 4.
    No. "Mystic mumbo jumbo" hasn't even been clearly defined. Ugh.

    And Jem only makes good points if she's right.

    She's could very well be simplifying personality. It doesn't have to be that simple. Do you think an MBTT ENFP 4 could have a simple personality or identity? Being a 4 pulls you inward, being an extrovert pulls you outward. (Let alone an MBTT INTJ 4!) Jem could very well be ignoring the possibility for complexity that you guys aren't aware of.

    Heh and my ISFp 4 buddy does talk about constantly being internally conflicted. She says she's pulled in different directions often.
    Last edited by Robot; 10-08-2008 at 01:53 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  15. #15
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jem View Post
    Waffles!

    I personally don't think SEIs can be 4s (this is just my feeling - no evidence to back it up whatsoever w00t) ... because I think an SEI's Si makes them too grounded in the here and now, in physical reality to be able to successfully go about recreating themselves identity-wise. I can see recreating their external image, behaviour etc ... but I can't even conceive of how you would go about recreating your identity as an Si-dominant type. An SEI's identity is tied up with how they relate to the world around them in a sensory way .... so in order to recreate their identity, it'd have to be a very conscious act involving deliberately ignoring their physical instincts or something - it would be more like simply acting. Which I've done in the past, but could never sustain as it tires me out exceedingly. The idea of recreating my identity certainly fascinates me, but I could never seriously entertain the idea because ... Idk - I am who I am who I am. I think that's related to my Si base. lol Reliance on my inate instincts. I don't think it's enough to say I strongly identify with the following - "Want/need/seek to discover or make an identity for his or her self" - therefore I must be a 4. I think nearly every person could relate to that to some degree at some point in their life. I mean I "want/need/seek to ...." but I've realised it's impossible for me to do. w00t I may be going out on a limb here, but I think all SEIs would come to that conclusion if they really know themselves - no matter how much they relate to that statement. I think it comes down to whether or not that motivation pretty much sums your motivations up as a person or not - and I think it can be pretty hard to separate your core motivation (if such a thing exists) from your needs/desires that have arisen from experiences in your life. So I don't think it's as easy as "read them all ... and whichever one you relate to most must be you".

    You don't need to recreate yourself to be a four. The main drive is to FIND YOUR IDENTITY.

    Also you say grounded in the here and now...so freaking what? SEIs are also introverts...they can and do introspect, right?

    Identity tied up to the world? What on earth are you talking about? You see a tree out in nature and now it's a part of you?

    You said "I think that's related to my Si base"...It might also be related to your enneagram 9ness. The way 9s relate to their identity is the same manner in which you just related to yours.

    Sums up your motivations as a person? Well she wants an identity.

    And of course that statement isn't enough! I didn't say it was enough! I said it was a requirement! And I'd like to add that the word "make" shouldn't have been taken so seriously...like I said before it's more about discovering who you are.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  16. #16
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    No. "Mystic mumbo jumbo" hasn't even been clearly defined. Ugh.

    And Jem only makes good points if she's right.

    She's could very well be simplifying personality. It doesn't have to be that simple. Do you think an ENFP 4 could have a simple personality or identity? Being a 4 pulls you inward, being an extrovert pulls you outward. (Let alone an INTJ 4!) Jem could very well be ignoring the possibility for complexity that you guys aren't aware of.

    Heh and my ISFp 4 buddy does talk about constantly being internally conflicted. She says she's pulled in different directions often.
    To be honest your making correlations that don't make sense. Re ENFp INTj.

    I can't speak for Jem, but what Jem says is consistent with dominant types. Of course people are complex, and enneatype is complex. If your friend really is an ISFp, then she is mistyping herself on enneagram.

    If she understood the enneatype correctly, she would see how it all related to her. Of course the mumbo jumbo she mentions hasn't been explained by you (or her) - but it says two things, either she doesn't relate to a large part of enneagram 4, or she doesn't understand it enough yet.

    I'm personally not a fan of typing people on enneagram with knowing nothing about them, especially over internet. But what you say about her being pulled in different directions, depending what she means by this, it could well be that of a 9.

  17. #17
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    To be honest your making correlations that don't make sense. Re ENFp INTj.

    I can't speak for Jem, but what Jem says is consistent with dominant types. Of course people are complex, and enneatype is complex. If your friend really is an ISFp, then she is mistyping herself on enneagram.

    If she understood the enneatype correctly, she would see how it all related to her. Of course the mumbo jumbo she mentions hasn't been explained by you (or her) - but it says two things, either she doesn't relate to a large part of enneagram 4, or she doesn't understand it enough yet.

    I'm personally not a fan of typing people on enneagram with knowing nothing about them, especially over internet. But what you say about her being pulled in different directions, depending what she means by this, it could well be that of a 9.
    Yes they are. Did you read it? I said ENFP and INTJ NOT ENFp and INTj. Myers briggs not socionics. The degree of complexity of ENFP 4s and INTJ 4s is the same or more than the degree of complexity of ISFp 4s.

    LOOK AT THE CAPITOLS THIS TIME. ENFP does not equal ENFp.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  18. #18
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    Yes they are. Did you read it? I said ENFP and INTJ NOT ENFp and INTj. Myers briggs not socionics.
    They are what? E4's? If you say so.

    I'm not sure what you want people to do here.

    Do you think someone who identifies with ENFP and INTJ descriptions are also ENFp's and INTj's? If you do then we can talk about the same thing in regards to what enneatype they would be, if you think they are not then I can't comment on what enneatypes these people might be at present.

    I also thought your primary concern here was your ISFp friend, but now you are talking about all the types..on MBTT? We would need more data than what at the moment is a subjective typing of either two people or a group of people on more than one system. How were they typed? Is it valid? Are you with me?

    Edit: I see you've edited your post, but I think what I say above still stands. Although i'll develop on a question..why doesn't ENFp = ENFP?

  19. #19
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    You don't need to recreate yourself to be a four. The main drive is to FIND YOUR IDENTITY.

    Also you say grounded in the here and now...so freaking what? SEIs are also introverts...they can and do introspect, right?

    Identity tied up to the world? What on earth are you talking about? You see a tree out in nature and now it's a part of you?

    You said "I think that's related to my Si base"...It might also be related to your enneagram 9ness. The way 9s relate to their identity is the same manner in which you just related to yours.

    Sums up your motivations as a person? Well she wants an identity.

    And of course that statement isn't enough! I didn't say it was enough! I said it was a requirement! And I'd like to add that the word "make" shouldn't have been taken so seriously...like I said before it's more about discovering who you are.
    Calm down. I'm gonna have to withdraw to reevaluate my position :-/ ... because I was thinking that 4 was more about creating different identities. Meh. See you in a few years.

  20. #20
    calenwen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cardiff
    TIM
    ISXj
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I agree with/relate to what Jem said.
    Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.
    John Muir

  21. #21

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    Yes they are. Did you read it? I said ENFP and INTJ NOT ENFp and INTj. Myers briggs not socionics. The degree of complexity of ENFP 4s and INTJ 4s is the same or more than the degree of complexity of ISFp 4s.

    LOOK AT THE CAPITOLS THIS TIME. ENFP does not equal ENFp.
    Idiot. Ultimate moron. Brain-spinning brainwasher.

  22. #22
    calenwen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Cardiff
    TIM
    ISXj
    Posts
    949
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post

    LOOK AT THE CAPITOLS THIS TIME. ENFP does not equal ENFp.
    Explain?
    Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.
    John Muir

  23. #23
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Idiot. Ultimate moron. Brain-spinning brainwasher.
    You know, I wish that you WOULD prove that each MBTT type must be their exact same type in socionics. That would only prove my point that socionics INFjs and ISFps CAN be enneagram fours! There are tons of documented cases of MBTT INFJs and ISFPs that are fours.

    Quote Originally Posted by calenwen View Post
    Explain?
    Socionics ENFp = ENFp
    MBTT ENFP = ENFP

    Big P. Little p.

    Get it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  24. #24
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That wasn't convincing at all. Explain better how Si conflicts with identity- seeking. If you have Si you are incapable of trying to figure out who you are? You are incapable of introspection?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  25. #25
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    They are what? E4's? If you say so.

    I'm not sure what you want people to do here.

    Do you think someone who identifies with ENFP and INTJ descriptions are also ENFp's and INTj's? If you do then we can talk about the same thing in regards to what enneatype they would be, if you think they are not then I can't comment on what enneatypes these people might be at present.

    I also thought your primary concern here was your ISFp friend, but now you are talking about all the types..on MBTT? We would need more data than what at the moment is a subjective typing of either two people or a group of people on more than one system. How were they typed? Is it valid? Are you with me?

    Edit: I see you've edited your post, but I think what I say above still stands. Although i'll develop on a question..why doesn't ENFp = ENFP?
    I'm not saying that all Myers Briggs INTJs and ENFPs are enenagram fours. Just that they can be. The reason I brought that up is because I feel if ISFp doesn't seem to fit with E4 maybe that doesn't matter because there is someone claming to be a 4 and because an MBTI ENFP or INTJ would also seem to not fit with E4...even more so than a socionics ISFp...but it's possible for those two MBTT types to be a four. Now do you get what I was saying?

    ENFp doesn't = ENFP because when I type ENFp I'm referreing to a socionics ENFp not a myers briggs ENFP. I didn't mean you won't have any MBTT ENFPS that are socionics ENFps. I was using the "p" to distinguish which system I was referring to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  26. #26
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    You said this today:
    Then five hours later you said this:
    Until you sort yourself out, you deserve no respect.
    You misunderstand me. I didn't mean it in a type sense! I meant that when I type E-N-F-LITTLE P that I'm refferrring to socionics ENFp and when I type E-N-F-BIG P that I'm referrring to MYERS BRIGGS ENFP.

    That's all I meant by that!!

    Which system I was referrring to.

    ENFp doesn't = ENFP because when I type ENFp I'm referreing to a socionics ENFp not a myers briggs ENFP. I didn't mean you won't have any MBTT ENFPS that are socionics ENFps. I was using the "p" to distinguish which system I was referring to.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  27. #27

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    8,578
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post

    *The clear cut requirements plus any combination of most of the things that are often true for enneagram 4s are in opposition of what it is to be an INFj. (I haven't found this to be the case.)

    Because what is required for it to be impossible for an INFj to be a four does not seem to be in existence the only option for proving that would be, as I mentioned before, to research every INFj on the planet.

    All of what I just said could also be applied to 4s and ISFps. In which I feel I have a much stronger case because I know of an ISFp that is an enneagram 4!! I talked to her and she said that she has been interested in the enneagram for about a year now and has read everything about it that she can get her hands on and strongly identifies with the enneagram 4. She said that learning about enneagram 4s was an eye opening experience for her because she had been under a few delusions that fours often find themselves under and that she applied some of the advice on enneagram self-help sites and it has been helping her. In terms of percentages, she said that with all the descriptions she's read when it comes to things true for her, the enneagram four description always had the highest percentage of things that are true for her in comparison to the other enneagram descriptions.
    sure. first of all, i will not comment on your alleged SEI 4 since i don't know the person and have no reason to take your word on either her representations of the SEI type or of 4.


    however, obviously no enneagram correlations like that would be purely impossible. merely, however, that EIIs and SEIs are both generally fairly poor fits with 4.

    dealing with even more dubious and seemingly antithetical correlations, such as ESE 5, SLI 3, EII 8, etc. might be a more confusing and "absolutely not" themed discussion.

  28. #28
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffweed17 View Post
    sure. first of all, i will not comment on your alleged SEI 4 since i don't know the person and have no reason to take your word on either her representations of the SEI type or of 4.
    K. Fair enough.


    however, obviously no enneagram correlations like that would be purely impossible. merely, however, that EIIs and SEIs are both generally fairly poor fits with 4.

    dealing with even more dubious and seemingly antithetical correlations, such as ESE 5, SLI 3, EII 8, etc. might be a more confusing and "absolutely not" themed discussion.
    Okay. That works for me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  29. #29
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    I'm not saying that all Myers Briggs INTJs and ENFPs are enenagram fours. Just that they can be. The reason I brought that up is because I feel if ISFp doesn't seem to fit with E4 maybe that doesn't matter because there is someone claming to be a 4 and because an MBTI ENFP or INTJ would also seem to not fit with E4...even more so than a socionics ISFp...but it's possible for those two MBTT types to be a four. Now do you get what I was saying?
    You are saying the same thing as has been discussed on this thread already. Claiming to be a 4 and being a 4 is two different things. As I've already said, you've demonstrated your friend either doesn't understand the 4 or doesn't relate to the 4. You've also done no real studying on your own, so it is only your uninformed opinion that these socionic (or MBTT) types you mentioned can be a 4.
    ENFp doesn't = ENFP because when I type ENFp I'm referreing to a socionics ENFp not a myers briggs ENFP. I didn't mean you won't have any MBTT ENFPS that are socionics ENFps. I was using the "p" to distinguish which system I was referring to.
    This is irrelevant. I'm not sure what to say about your posting on this thread now. You need to study some more and have more knowledge to draw your conclusions on. I don't see it as my job just now to convince you otherwise in your current views. Considering you've already rejected an dominant's view here on how this cannot equate to type 4, what's the point in saying anything, if you're just going to reject it with mis-informed arguments?

  30. #30
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @ Jem and Cyclops: Sorry. I dunno what came over me. I should have spoken with more respect and politness. Please forgive me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  31. #31
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    You are saying the same thing as has been discussed on this thread already. Claiming to be a 4 and being a 4 is two different things. As I've already said, you've demonstrated your friend either doesn't understand the 4 or doesn't relate to the 4. You've also done no real studying on your own, so it is only your uninformed opinion that these socionic (or MBTT) types you mentioned can be a 4.
    This is irrelevant. I'm not sure what to say about your posting on this thread now. You need to study some more and have more knowledge to draw your conclusions on. I don't see it as my job just now to convince you otherwise in your current views. Considering you've already rejected an dominant's view here on how this cannot equate to type 4, what's the point in saying anything, if you're just going to reject it with mis-informed arguments?
    I think I've repeatedly misunderstood you and you've repeatedly misunderstood me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  32. #32
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    You misunderstand me. I didn't mean it in a type sense! I meant that when I type E-N-F-LITTLE P that I'm refferrring to socionics ENFp and when I type E-N-F-BIG P that I'm referrring to MYERS BRIGGS ENFP.

    That's all I meant by that!!

    Which system I was referrring to.

    ENFp doesn't = ENFP because when I type ENFp I'm referreing to a socionics ENFp not a myers briggs ENFP. I didn't mean you won't have any MBTT ENFPS that are socionics ENFps. I was using the "p" to distinguish which system I was referring to.
    Yes, I realised this after I posted and deleted the post. Still, do you think that ENFP type descriptions are basically talking about the same thing as the ENFp descriptions?

  33. #33
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    I think I've repeatedly misunderstood you and you've repeatedly misunderstood me.
    No, i've understood you. You just don't understand the types of all the systems yet, and how enneagram type 4 can't be applicable to a type with an base. Nor can it relate to a MBTT type with extraverted sensing in it's auxilary.

  34. #34
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    Yes, I realised this after I posted and deleted the post. Still, do you think that ENFP type descriptions are basically talking about the same thing as the ENFp descriptions?
    Oh okay. So you do get what I was saying. Heh I really should word things much more carefully. Hahaha.

    Uhmm. Wait does that matter? Like if I were to say "No they're not basically talking about the same thing." Or "Yes they are"...what are you thinking that that would mean?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  35. #35
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    No, i've understood you. You just don't understand the types of all the systems yet, and how enneagram type 4 can't be applicable to a type with an base. Nor can it relate to a MBTT type with extraverted sensing in it's auxilary.
    See now there I would disagree...you're saying that a myers briggs ISFP with extroverted sensing can't be a socionics ISFp with introverted sensing, correct?

    Let me pull up of a definition of Myers Briggs extroverted sensing...IMO it doesn't conflict with socionics introverted sensing...
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  36. #36
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    Uhmm. Wait does that matter? Like if I were to say "No they're not basically talking about the same thing." Or "Yes they are"...what are you thinking that that would mean?
    If you think the ENFP type descriptions are basically the same as ENFp descriptions then it means ENFP = ENFp.

  37. #37
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cyclops View Post
    If you think the ENFP type descriptions are basically the same as ENFp descriptions then it means ENFP = ENFp.
    Oh well again when I typed that I didn't actually mean it in that sense. I simply meant that I was using the "P" which is either a lower case "p" or an upper case "P" to distinguish that I was either talking about socionics or Myers Briggs.

    In the sense of what MBTT type can be what sociotype which is I think what you're talking about right here, right? When you say ENFp = ENFP you're saying that across systems that type remains the same, correct? I wasn't saying that. I was saying that because there was a capitol P I was talking about the MBTT ENFP. I don't know that ENFP descriptions are the most similar to ENFp descriptions. I know that it's very possible for socionic ENFps to be something other than MBTT ENFPs. K?
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

  38. #38
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    See now there I would disagree...you're saying that a myers briggs ISFP with extroverted sensing can't be a socionics ISFp with introverted sensing, correct?

    Let me pull up of a definition of Myers Briggs extroverted sensing...
    No i'm not saying that. You are saying that ISFP doesn't equal ISFp. Or are you saying that it does now? I'm trying to work out what you think! (I'm also trying to keep up with what appears to be you jumping from system to system.) Can you just calm down and focus on the here and now for a moment? You don't need to pull out a description of anything at the moment. Just clarify your position!

  39. #39
    ~~rubicon~~ Rubicon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Chatbox
    TIM
    SEI, 9
    Posts
    5,268
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Robot View Post
    @ Jem and Cyclops: Sorry. I dunno what came over me. I should have spoken with more respect and politness. Please forgive me.
    Dunno, Robot. I'll think about it.

  40. #40
    Robot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    362
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jem View Post
    Dunno, Robot. I'll think about it.
    I really am sorry.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mariano Rajoy View Post
    Pop psychology isn't rocket science.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

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
  •