Socionneagram Cocktails

[Ezra]

Because Enneagram is less complex than socionics, I had an idea today, which shows that some of the socionics types are described in such a way that they work better as combos of different Enneagram types than the types on their own.

So you have your obvious links:

ESE - 2
ILE - 7
IEI - 4
ILI - 5

But then I've thought about it and drawn some more conclusions.

SEI - Seven and Nine (but primarily Nine IMO). Nine is obvious, but they often have the well-being of a Seven.

LII - a strange combo of Five and Nine, with a hint of One and perhaps Six (but what type doesn't have a hint of Six in it). I've seen some Nine LIIs, which I was surprised about, but then it does make sense. Through lack of Se, they ruminate. They narcotise. They procrastinate etc. LIIs have the intellect of a Five, or a 6w5, but then at the same time, given that they are IJ, this can make them seem Oneish (for example, look at LII Kant, who was the most regimented man ever).

EIE - mainly Three, but with hints of One (striving to be good and make a change, probably due to their being NF) and Six. They are too doubting of themselves to be completely Three-like, which is what Six accounts for.

LSI - a combination of One and Eight, with a hint of Six (more accurately 6w5). They have the drive of the Eight, the perfection of the One, and the rigidity of a routine-focused Six. At the same time, they lack the outwardly forceful nature of the Eight, and often the doubts and worries of the Six simply don't exist; that is, they're too confident.

SLE - a strange combo of Three and Eight, with a hint of Seven. They have the mindset of the Seven, which can switch from one mode of thinking to another very easily. They have the adaptability of the Three or Seven, and many of them have the suaveness of the Three, which seems totally uncharacteristic of an Eight. However, they can play rough and tumble like an Eight, and have the obvious outwardly-directed strength and force of an Eight, as well as having the focus of a Three or Eight totally unlike a Seven.

LIE - a combination of Three, Six and Eight with a hint of One. One of the most 'in bits' types in the socion, IMO. Essentially, LIEs have the drive and often diplomacy of the Three, sometimes with the motivations of an Eight; but sometimes also with the superficial motivations of a Three (to succeed). At the same time, their doubts and worries can't really be attributed to Three or Eight, but fit rather nicely with a Six. They also have some one habits, including striving for perfection in all they do (which could alternatively be explained by the Three aspects in them).

ESI - One/Six/Eight elements. They have the moral focus and temperament of a One, with some of the behaviour of a Six seen in the LSI. In fact, much like the LSI, in that they often have the confidence and drive of an Eight. However, you'd probably expect more Ones to identify with ESI > LSI due to the whole moral thing. LSIs don't do something bad because it's not in their system; ESIs refrain from doing something bad simply because it's wrong - a way of thinking far more in line with the One mindset.

SEE - Three, Seven and Eight. Probably more suave than the SLE, and so less Eight-like, they have a social understanding and skills of a Three/Seven playboy individual which are very rare in the Eight. At the same time, they have more of the drive of an Eight, and certainly more confidence (since Eights are more confident internally than Threes or Sevens).

LSE - another 'bits of lots of types' type; a really weird combo of One, Two, Three, Eight and Nine. The Nine elements are inherent in all Deltas; probably because Si valuing is so typically a Nine thing, or perhaps vice versa. They have the striving for perfection element, the routine, the innate goodness etc. of the One, the drive of the Three (or perhaps Three and Eight combined, and the independence of the Eight. The Two comes from their being a caregiver.

SLI - a combination of Five and Nine. They have the energy of the Nine, and, again the aspects of a Nine that all Deltas have, but the emotional detachment and the Te creative of a Five.

IEE - a combination of Six and Seven, with perhaps a small dash of Nine. Like a Seven in every basic respect, but without the emotional detachment. On the contrary, the IEE acts more like a Six warming to others, although this probably stems more from a Nine's motivation of emotional harmony rather than the anxiety of the Six.

EII - a combination of One and Nine. Has the calm and serenity of a Nine, but the temperament (which is actually quite opposed to Nine) and the morality - without the preachiness (probably found more likely in an ESI) - of a One.

Any questions, feel free to ask.

[Satan]

so what this is really saying is that the models aren't accurate.

[Ezra]

No model can be completely accurate. Practicality has a say in everything.

[electric sheep]

I think LII profiles are more 5 and 1, and less 9. They seem to be modeled after Kant and Robespierre, both ones (I think), and Descartes, a five. 9 can be inferred from polr, but that's about it.

[ArchonAlarion]

Agreed with mimosa and fear.

Also I cannot see 7 for SEI and 4 is a common enne type for them. I know you, Ezra, have disagreed with this in the past.

Thats the one i had the biggest problem with, but all the others are off too, sorry.

[Ezra]

Yeah, it's nice to see some reasoning from each of you to back up your disagreements.

[Banana Pancakes]

I don't think think it's possible to correlate these 100%, even if you blend them.

[Creepy-male]

I don't think think it's possible to correlate these 100%, even if you blend them.

Well strictly speaking its possible...

if you believe its possible for a person to have an enneagram type

and you believe its possible for a person to have a socionics type

then you've already more or less proved its possible since the identity of a person will remain constant

if they were not correlated you would only be able to describe a person as a enneagram type OR a socionics type

you would not be able to describe a person as BOTH or less you'de be indirectly linking the two models

being brutually logical, you'de have to choose between one of these two assertions =>
1) The enneagram and socionics share a correlation
or
2) A person can't have an enneagram type if they have a socionics type and vice versa

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

I personally believe the 1st assertion that they are correlated.... I think of it like socionics is one basis and enneagram is another basis. What is being developed here is the transformation from one basis to another.

However I think that "transformation" is a difficult one to understand because the fundamental assumptions of both models are different.

For example.... Enneagram has a triad with Head, Heart, and Instinct. It would make sense that Head types would have Dominant Thinking Jungian Functions in Socionics. Furthermore it would make sense that Heart types would have Dominant Feeling Jungian Functions in Socionics. What would be confusing is marking the Instinctual Types as having a particular Jungian Function.

This is why its hard to "transformation" Enneagram into Socionics and vice versa. Simply because the fundamental assumptions are so different. In order to have a competent "transformation" between the basis' you'de have to know how the two basis' relate to each other.

You'de have to know the role of Jungian Functions in each of the enneagram types.

It sounds simple, but its daunting. Take a type like an 8.... is it's dominant function thinking or feeling??? At first one might be tempted to say its feeling because 8's don't resist their feelings of anger but instead act it out and embrace them (hopefully productively). However 8's also are known to become stiff, impenetrable, and tough when resolute towards something, resisting their feelings and staying focused on the goal... more in line with a thinking jungian function or a thinker dictomy.

This paradox brings about problems, but it can be easily solved by considering 8's use feeling functions with their anger and certain other feelings, but they also use thinking functions in separate circumstances.

This is hard to translate in Socionics because Model A is all about some functions being dominant and other weaker.... Enneagram is not about that, but more about the specifics of how functions come out in circumstances.

If you really wanted to have a foolproof correlation you'de have to peel back Socionics and the Enneagram to a deeper layer of understanding that is cumbersome to deal with at best....

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

In short, I think they correlate, but in a very complicated way... so I think its simpler to just let them live in their own lands. You're better off knowing when to think in Enneagram and when to think in Socionics, rather than trying to translate between the two, in my opinoin.

[Creepy-male]

Wow, that was needlessly complicated.

Let's say you have an orange.

(an orange)

One way of looking at it is that it has orange skin and is juicy (physical properties). Another is that it's a citrus fruit with species name Citrus ×sinensis (classifications).

Similarly, let's say you have a Gul.

(a Gul)

One set of properties of Gul is that he's cheerily passive, has a tendency to live in his imagination, and has real difficulty motivating himself to do stuff (Enneagram). Another set of properties is that he lives in an abstract and mental world filled with !!VIBRANT POSSIBILITIES!! and lots of weird mental illustrations and uses lots of references to like/dislike and magnetism in his speech (Socionics).

Maybe not a good example, since there's a reasonable (very high) chance I'm a Six or a Seven, but the idea is there.

I think what you were getting at, maybe, is that the Enneagram types are built off "How did your childhood traumatize you into developing the defense patterns that make up your style?" (Also, I understand that Nine is the "default" type.) How is that reconcilable with Socionics types being determined at birth? Maybe significant disorders can "mimic" enneatypes, even. The sort of concentrated self-hatred depression can bring about can resemble a One's patterns of criticality, high-functioning Autism can look like a Five, ADD or mania... just misdiagnosed E7. Stfu. Seven got there first. etc

Based on this idea of cocktails, I'd say each socionics type can go several routes. Life circumstances develop one set of characteristics over another, giving rise to your etype. Case-in-point, zombie legion Si-bases always pop out as E9s.

After that fantastically incoherent ramble, I leave you with a beautiful quote about IEEs from our Russian friends at socioscope.

When I talk about anything, it's often like wandering into the jungle, and never returning to the heart of the story.

[Brilliand]

Gulanzon, why are you referring to yourself as IEE while you have ESE in your signature?

if they were not correlated you would only be able to describe a person as a enneagram type OR a socionics type

you would not be able to describe a person as BOTH or less you'de be indirectly linking the two models

No - "not correlated" can also mean that everyone has types of both sorts, but they're pretty much balanced, i.e., an INTj has equal chances of being each Enneagram type, so does an ESTp, and when you know that someone is a 9 that doesn't tell you anything at all about his Socionic type...

I don't think that that is the case, though I'll agree that the correlation is weak.

[Creepy-male]

Gulanzon, why are you referring to yourself as IEE while you have ESE in your signature?

S.O.S B.O.R.E.D.C.U.R.E

Supreme Ostentatious Scheme for Blasting Off Reams of Entropy with Chaos, Uncertainty, and Rampant Evil.

In other words, just a spot of chaotic fun for the betterment of the community

[electric sheep]

Yes, I would have to say there is a weak correlation. For example, I personally don't know any LII 7s, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Jon Stewart is supposedly one of them. I could easily see an E7 and mistake them for another sociotype, or see an LII and mistake them for another E type. I personally think that any perceived correlation is the result of a biased interpretation of the information elements.

...well maybe not ALL of the correlation, but a lot of it.

[Creepy-male]

Wow, that was needlessly complicated.

oh........ my........ fucking! god......

look man if you thought it was complicated... just ignore that shit. Instead you went to the great ends of writing an entire post to mock me.... thats messed up.

you know you really didn't need to do that, its not like me writing a complicated post is hurting anyone.... I mean wtf? why are you being an ass?

Please fucking tell me, why that was nessicary? I'd be curious to know what the "heart" of your story was....

[Creepy-male]

No - "not correlated" can also mean that everyone has types of both sorts, but they're pretty much balanced, i.e., an INTj has equal chances of being each Enneagram type, so does an ESTp, and when you know that someone is a 9 that doesn't tell you anything at all about his Socionic type...

I don't think that that is the case, though I'll agree that the correlation is weak.

Ok..... well

I disagree, I mean you're assuming this works based on probabilities.... your entire model is based on saying what the chances are of a particular socionics type being an enneagram type.

I honestly think that is ridiculous because INTj's aren't enneagram types because of a result that was produced with a dice..... INTj's are the enneagram type they are because of their behavior and inner personality. I think there is a reason behind it more valuable than a dice being rolled imho. A complicated reason... but a reason none the less.

Furthermore I think its ridiculous to think INTj's would have equal chances at all types in the enneagram. I can't really prove this, but just from observing people I haven't noticed what you refer to... usually the INTj's I run across seem to fit into a small subset of enneagram types... if you were correct I'd expect to run across an equal variety of enneagram types. And this isn't even conjecturing this is just observation, and your model doesn't fit in line with everday observation.




I mean I differ on slight details and we can pursue this debate if you wish, but obviously we both agree that there is a weak correlation and thats probably the most valuable peice of information.... I mean who honestly cares if we are using a "probability based model" or the model I am using?

It would seem to me this is a debate over semantics and not anything really important.... but if you want to debate those semantics I think your being foolish in your assumptions and overly confident in outright telling me I am wrong.

[Brilliand]

Furthermore I think its ridiculous to think INTj's would have equal chances at all types in the enneagram. I can't really prove this, but just from observing people I haven't noticed what you refer to... usually the INTj's I run across seem to fit into a small subset of enneagram types... if you were correct I'd expect to run across an equal variety of enneagram types. And this isn't even conjecturing this is just observation, and your model doesn't fit in line with everday observation.

I agree with this. My mention of INTj coinciding with every Enneagram type in equal proportions was a description of what a complete non-correlation would be, not a description of reality.

I mean I differ on slight details and we can pursue this debate if you wish, but obviously we both agree that there is a weak correlation and thats probably the most valuable peice of information.... I mean who honestly cares if we are using a "probability based model" or the model I am using?

It would seem to me this is a debate over semantics and not anything really important.... but if you want to debate those semantics I think your being foolish in your assumptions and overly confident in outright telling me I am wrong.

I guess that I misunderstood you - I thought that you were saying that if one person can have both a Socionic type and an Enneagram type, then that in itself makes the two systems correlated.

[ArchonAlarion]

Yeah, it's nice to see some reasoning from each of you to back up your disagreements.

aww ur welcome!

I'd try to explain, but you'd disagree with my premises anyways and also I'm sooooo lazy.

so really im just here to take up bandwidth.

does bandwidth work like that?

wikipedia is ambigous.

[Creepy-male]

aww ur welcome!

I'd try to explain, but you'd disagree with my premises anyways and also I'm sooooo lazy.

so really im just here to take up bandwidth.

does bandwidth work like that?

wikipedia is ambigous.

awwwww hooooowwwww swwweeeeettttttttttttttttttt!

lol (j/k)

[Creepy-male]

I agree with this. My mention of INTj coinciding with every Enneagram type in equal proportions was a description of what a complete non-correlation would be, not a description of reality.



I guess that I misunderstood you - I thought that you were saying that if one person can have both a Socionic type and an Enneagram type, then that in itself makes the two systems correlated.

yea yea I got worked up because I got mocked and that shit pisses me off beyond all belief.... you have no idea.

Regardless I am not angry with YOU (I am angry with someone else), the thing is this may clarify my thoughts up so we don't get our wires crossed.

But please don't reply to this saying its overly complex and mock and criticize me.... if you feel its too complex, no one is forcing you to read it.










==============================================
MODEL 1

When most people talk about correlation I believe they are thinking in terms of a model like this.....

Socionics Type 1 = Enneagram Type 1 and 2
Socionics Type 2 = Enneagram Type 2 and 5
Socionics Type 3 = Enneagram Type 3 and 4
Socionics Type 4 = Enneagram Type 1 and 6

Etc etc you get the point, in this model you are trying to correlate the two ideas but the logic is primitive in my opinion..... speaking in terms of scientific and mathematical logic the model is similar to

s1 = c1 [e1] + c2 [e2]
s2 = c1 [e2] + c2 [e5]
s3 = c1 [e3] + c2 [e4]
s4 = c1 [e1] + c2 [e6]

s1,s2,s3,s4 being socionics types
c1,c2 being coeffficient to weigh how well they agree
e1,e2,e3,e4,e5,e6 being enneagram types

This logic provides a correlation but its a very direct correlation....

I don't think socionics and enneagrams share a DIRECT correlation.

I don't even think this model works even if you interpret the "Weighting" as probability... like....

s1 = c1 [e1] + c2 [e2]

c1 and c2 are the weights or probabilties

or in english that you could say.... You have a 40% chance of being Enneagram type 1 and a 60% chance of being Enneagram type 2 if you are Socionics type 1....

I think its flawed because there are actual reasons why people are the types they are... isn't a game of chance imo.
================================================== ================


















================================================== ===============
MODEL 2

The model I purpose is based around certain elements of socionics theory fit well within the enneagram theory.....

For an illustrative example consider the phrase.....

"Enneagram Type 9's are detached from reality and their surroundings"

You could infer from this....

"Enneagram Type 9's have PoLR in "

The problem is, certain elements of both theories will not be able to be translated through in this manner. Certain ideas in each of the theories are solely unique to those theories and can't be represented in the other.

An example of this is.......

The heart triad is feeling dictomy
The head triad is thinking dictomy
The instinctual triad is......... is...... there is no clear translation in dictomies for this.

Because of this I think only certain elements can be infered......

I don't think this means they don't correlate... I think they correlate... but the correlation is partial.

Translating a Socionics type to an Enneagram will work like this in this model......
Some information will translate directly
Some information in socionics will be lost and unrepresentable in the enneagram
Some information in the enneagram will be unknown because it is unrepresentable in socionics

This is the model I purpose and it doesn't mean they don't correlate.... it means they correlate weakly.

================================================== ===============

[Brilliand]

or in english that you could say.... You have a 40% chance of being Enneagram type 1 and a 60% chance of being Enneagram type 2 if you are Socionics type 1....

I think its flawed because there are actual reasons why people are the types they are... isn't a game of chance imo.

Of course, it works quite well from the perspective of an independent observer trying to guess someone's type.

Other than that, I agree with you. Thank you for explaining; I found your post quite clear.

[Creepy-male]

Of course, it works quite well from the perspective of an independent observer trying to guess someone's type.

Other than that, I agree with you. Thank you for explaining; I found your post quite clear.

True, I think the probability model is extremely practical but also primitive. It works well when using typologies for identifying peoples types but it works horribly when using it for a more in depth understanding of a specific individual. I personally prefer to focus more on the in depth understanding part because alot of people I just don't care what type they are lol.

[Creepy-male]

oh........ my........ fucking! god......

look man if you thought it was complicated... just ignore that shit. Instead you went to the great ends of writing an entire post to mock me.... thats messed up.

you know you really didn't need to do that, its not like me writing a complicated post is hurting anyone.... I mean wtf? why are you being an ass?

Please fucking tell me, why that was nessicary? I'd be curious to know what the "heart" of your story was....

Wait, mock you, what? I'm sorry you read the rest of my post as a personal attack. It was just my thoughts.

[Creepy-male]

Wait, mock you, what? I'm sorry you read the rest of my post as a personal attack. It was just my thoughts.

I'm suspicious of you now.......

I mean ok ok I see how it could have not been a personal attack, but you led in your post with "Wow that was needlessy complicated" and then proceeded to compare a person to an orange in a comical rambling tone...... probably not the best way to show someone you aren't criticizing them if you understand what I mean.

[Brilliand]

I'm suspicious of you now.......

I mean ok ok I see how it could have not been a personal attack, but you led in your post with "Wow that was needlessy complicated" and then proceeded to compare a person to an orange in a comical rambling tone...... probably not the best way to show someone you aren't criticizing them if you understand what I mean.

Well, knowing Gul, a comical rambling tone for a long explanation is perfectly normal and probably not meant as a personal attack.

[Creepy-male]

I'm suspicious of you now.......

I mean ok ok I see how it could have not been a personal attack, but you led in your post with "Wow that was needlessy complicated" and then proceeded to compare a person to an orange in a comical rambling tone...... probably not the best way to show someone you aren't criticizing them if you understand what I mean.

I wasn't comparing a person to an orange. I was trying to emphasise that, based on which system you use to look at something, different traits come into focus. For example, looking at an orange based on classification systems versus looking at an orange based on physical characteristics. Maybe something I didn't get to in my post was that sometimes these perspectives/entry points/systems/whatever can overlap. For example, Deltas are often good-natured hippies, so the chiller ones can look like Nines or whatever.

Do you happen to know your socionics type at all? There's an interesting process by which people use the first item in a list to flavour the rest of the items. That process betrays that you took "needlessly complicated" as a strong personal attack.

I see an interesting loss in the quality of information moving between us.

[Creepy-male]

Well, knowing Gul, a comical rambling tone for a long explanation is perfectly normal and probably not meant as a personal attack.

Yea I can get jumpy about certain things, I think its the wing of enneagram 8 I have.... thats debatable though... but I know its happened to me before were I think a person is making a joke at my expense and I freak out, only to realize they were just having some fun at no ones expense.

[Creepy-male]

I wasn't comparing a person to an orange. I was trying to emphasise that, based on which system you use to look at something, different traits come into focus. For example, looking at an orange based on classification systems versus looking at an orange based on physical characteristics. Maybe something I didn't get to in my post was that sometimes these perspectives/entry points/systems/whatever can overlap. For example, Deltas are often good-natured hippies, so the chiller ones can look like Nines or whatever.

Do you happen to know your socionics type at all? There's an interesting process by which people use the first item in a list to flavour the rest of the items. That process betrays that you took "needlessly complicated" as a strong personal attack.

I see an interesting loss in the quality of information moving between us.

Well I don't typically think in terms of socionics too much since I haven't mastered information elements.... but in kiersey and MBTI most people type me as INTj or INTp so in socionics I would likely be ILI or LII but thats heavily debatable.

What is this process you mentioned?

[UDP]

LSE - another 'bits of lots of types' type; a really weird combo of One, Two, Three, Eight and Nine. The Nine elements are inherent in all Deltas; probably because Si valuing is so typically a Nine thing, or perhaps vice versa. They have the striving for perfection element, the routine, the innate goodness etc. of the One, the drive of the Three (or perhaps Three and Eight combined, and the independence of the Eight. The Two comes from their being a caregiver.

SLI - a combination of Five and Nine. They have the energy of the Nine, and, again the aspects of a Nine that all Deltas have, but the emotional detachment and the Te creative of a Five.

IEE - a combination of Six and Seven, with perhaps a small dash of Nine. Like a Seven in every basic respect, but without the emotional detachment. On the contrary, the IEE acts more like a Six warming to others, although this probably stems more from a Nine's motivation of emotional harmony rather than the anxiety of the Six.

EII - a combination of One and Nine. Has the calm and serenity of a Nine, but the temperament (which is actually quite opposed to Nine) and the morality - without the preachiness (probably found more likely in an ESI) - of a One.

I've only looked at delta ones, but, I see what you mean and i generally agree with all of that.

[Olinda]

SEE - Three, Seven and Eight. Probably more suave than the SLE, and so less Eight-like, they have a social understanding and skills of a Three/Seven playboy individual which are very rare in the Eight. At the same time, they have more of the drive of an Eight, and certainly more confidence (since Eights are more confident internally than Threes or Sevens).

I think that SEE can be 2 too. I'm 2w3. Twos are open and sociable. 3 wings gives me targets and determination to get them(3 wings is really strong in fact, and when I'm angry connection with 8 causes that I'm impulsive and sometimes too straightforward).

Have a look there: http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/FO...TOPIC_ID=22712

In fact I don't like mixing enneagram and socionics... because enneagram is about our motivations and socionics is about data processing from world. For me is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

[Azeroffs]

Yeah it's kinda ridiculous to say that some socionics types can't be some e-types. E-types are how we cope with anger/shame/anxiety and all types feel those things, though admittedly in varying degrees.