Enneagram type 5 considered only for introverts

[MensSuperMateriam]

Enneagram five is usually view as the land of introverts. ENTp is the only sociotype that (to some degree) is usually accepted as E5 capable. Some people even suggest ENTj as a remote possibility. In my opinion, none of them should be valid. Regardless how well balanced a particular extrovert could be.

The core of E5 implies that the subject tends to withdraw from the external world (introversion). If "left alone", this natural impulse predates most of the behavior causing the user becomes unbalanced (as happens with all enneagrams). But my point is that this "harmful trend" which the user should learn to compensate, is natural to this personality. Given any E5 subject, most of the time this should be counterbalanced instead of forced.

This is not compatible with extroversion. Sure any extrovert could be pensive, reclusive and such, but this is not the natural trend. Extroverted functions are "broad" whereas introverted ones are "deep" for the same area of work. Where an intellectual extrovert would want more (quantity: information, theories, whatever) an introverted one would want better (quality). Seeking the deepest truth is much more an introverted thing. Obviously introversion, as a behavioral characteristic, is not black/white. All intermediate points should be possible, but if someone is in the middle, there's no reason for calling him/her ILE istead of LII...

I think the idea that ILEs can be E5 originates in the common association E5=intellectual, thinker. Most ILEs whould describe themselves as such, and also they're seen in this way by others. But being an "intellectual" does not imply E5, it's required something more: a certain motivation. This motivation, in the case of ILEs, fits much better in E7. The E5 mimicking is caused by an internalization of the desired object, instead a real detachment from it (E5 requisite). ILEs are Ti egos, and Ti (despite all of its potential) has certain trend to reify ideas, which are almost seen as "real objects". The detachment required for being an E5 is not really happening. While playing (E7, broad, quantity) with this imaginary objects, interaction with real physical world is almost not required. The more you play the less you interact (intuition helps here, but not a requisite).

I have doubts about the validity of interrelationships between enneagrams, but if we accept them, ILE+E5 becomes even more improbable. E5 degenerates in the path to E7. If we could associate a single function to an enneagram, E7 and Ne are a very good match. So do ILEs degenerate as they become closer to their leading function, the core of their psyche??? Well Jung said that emphasizing too much the first function causes unbalance. But LIIs as crea-Ne, they achieve balance through Ne. LII positive development should be then in the direction of E7, instead being this a degenerative pathway...

There's a famous case that makes people predisposed for accepting this combination: Eintein, who is commonly typed as ILE, and also commonly typed as E5. A "genius"must belong to "genius types", right?

Being an ethical extrovert and also a E5 makes no sense, methinks. I've seen some people typing themselves as such, and probably they do this because (again) they consider themselves as intellectuals. Guys and/or girls, being an E5 does not make you more intellectual, more intelligent, or being more right, so there's no need to force such combination. I could see (unlikely but not impossible) IF+E5, but EF+E5? No way.

[mu4]

Have you met some E7 ILE's, they're terribly unhealthy and absorbed by all sort of vices, fanciful ideas and failed ambitions. Introtim and extrotim are different than introversion and extroversion, and the terminology in socionics is differentiated. While SEI is quite a extroverted type, ILE is quite a introverted type.

The issue of attachment in ILE lies in the vulnerable function and not in the ego. Having as a vulnerable function, they have a weakness in this and can conscious seek to avoid it. Individuals are as much defined by their weakness as their strength. However, it is in our creative and role function that we deal with the world, as these are our contact functions.

In socionics the functions that defines us, the ones we make our strongest judgements and have the most stubborn ideas are the 1/4/5/8 evaluatory functions. Two being introverted and two being extroverted.

However our 2/3/6/7 functions are our situational function as they are neither our strongest or weakest area, here we adapt to the situation and interact with the world.

In the enneagram descriptions of the 5 in terms of childhood development

Avarice began to manifest in us when, as small children, we lost contact with our essential natures, and consequently felt small, tiny, and helpless in a vast, uncaring universe. This left all of us, and Fives especially, terrified of life and doubting our ability to function in the world. Thus, Avarice leads Fives to feel that they must retreat from reality or defend against it, while trying to restore the feeling that they are capable and competent to deal with this overwhelming situation. It leads to an emotional attitude of rejection and detachment—a turning away from the world as if one were not part of it. Avarice causes us to feel as though the universe has rejected us, so we better find a way to make do with our wits and with a minimal of support and resources.

I find this is already incompatible with Socionics as the very development of a enneagram type is imo unrelated to this sort of situation. Also terminology such as lost contact with our essential natures seem to be out of place as far as socionics concepts. I think it's diffucult to deal with trying to come away with some hard rules for enneagram and socionics, as they're conceptually too different.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Have you met some E7 ILE's, they're terribly unhealthy and absorbed by all sort of vices, fanciful ideas and failed ambitions. Introtim and extrotim are different than introversion and extroversion, and the terminology in socionics is differentiated. While SEI is quite a extroverted type, ILE is quite a introverted type.

I used introversion and extroversion in jungian terms of attachment/detachment respect to the desired object, not sociability. I do not deny that ILEs moderately social introverts, anyway.

The issue of attachment in ILE lies in the vulnerable function and not in the ego. Having as a vulnerable function, they have a weakness in this and can conscious seek to avoid it. Individuals are as much defined by their weakness as their strength. However, it is in our creative and role function that we deal with the world, as these are our contact functions.

In socionics the functions that defines us, the ones we make our strongest judgements and have the most stubborn ideas are the 1/4/5/8 evaluatory functions. Two being introverted and two being extroverted.

However our 2/3/6/7 functions are our situational function as they are neither our strongest or weakest area, here we adapt to the situation and interact with the world.

Using PoLR for justifying detachment is too forced, methinks. And if this kind of reasoning applies to ILEs, it should apply to other types as well, making all extratims detached and all introtims attached, which does not make much sense.

[MensSuperMateriam]

I find this is already incompatible with Socionics as the very development of a enneagram type is imo unrelated to this sort of situation. Also terminology such as lost contact with our essential natures seem to be out of place as far as socionics concepts. I think it's diffucult to deal with trying to come away with some hard rules for enneagram and socionics, as they're conceptually too different.

I agree. I do not think there's a 1:1 correlation (for example, almost any type could be E6). But there are certain combinations that I see highly unlikely.

[Creepy-male]

I would argue that the fundamental basis of extroversion and introversion in socionics is not entirely reconcilable with the notion of directional theory in the enneagram (withdrawl being one of three directional orientations <-,o,+>,<minus,neutral,plus>).

I would agree that there is some compatibility, but it's definitely not one to one.

Socionics is based on the concepts of information metabolism and the Jungian functions, it is this that determines a person as introverted or extroverted. In a very objective way we could say that an extrovert in socionics is merely one who has a base function that is extroverted.

In Enneagram, withdrawl is a cycle that is linked to integration and disintegration. When withdrawled types (4,5,9) are stressed signficantly they will undergo a period of withdrawl to regenerate, then proceed towards being more assertive. These cycles work differently and have different motivations based on the type.

9's withdrawl to preserve peace, when stress and conflict mount, it's typical for e9's to withdrawal to find inner peace
4's withdrawl out of melancholy, when stress mounts and negative feelings build in one, they withdrawal to reshape their identity and develop healthier attitudes
5's withdrawl out of fear, when stress mounts in the world they cut back and simplify to control their environment in a manageable way, they withdrawal to gain control, perspective, and the like

9's will assert themselves when they are at peace until conflict arises
4's will typically under go hyperactive phases of asserting themselves and enjoy/savoring life until it turns sour
5's will typically assert themselves until they feel things are too much to deal with or chaotic

In a way enneagram is worlds apart from classic introversion/extroversion as it defines these entire cycles and motivations. Withdrawal isn't merely an individual that is always shy or introverted, or private or the like. It's a flag used to communicate a very specific pattern or cycle those types undergo that is distinguished from two other styles and fits in a system based around patterns of 3.

Also withdrawal in the enneagram isn't just a personality trait, it defines a strategy to dealing with stress, and its part of the underlying fears and motives of a type. The progress of undergoing several cycles of asserting and withdrawaling for a type builds experience and allows the type ability to be more effective. Other types may not withdrawal in their cycles but likewise the cycles they undergo develop them in ways as well that are characteristic. Withdrawal in the enneagram isn't supposed to be looked at as "the shy or private ones" but more so as a technique used to mitigate stress on the pathway to development of character through the process of remedying certain thematic conflicts and fulfilling thematic motivations.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Best of luck teaching this non-problem who's boss.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Pretty clear Shang. Thanks.

[Korpsy Knievel]

^ If all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a hammer.



FIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVE YEAH

[MensSuperMateriam]

^ If all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a hammer.

You mean a nail? I remember your opinion about this everything looks like a nail from a former thread. Something like you start with a tool that allows you making more tools (agree) so I'm not really sure about your point.

[mikemex]

Being an ethical extrovert and also a E5 makes no sense, methinks. I've seen some people typing themselves as such, and probably they do this because (again) they consider themselves as intellectuals. Guys and/or girls, being an E5 does not make you more intellectual, more intelligent, or being more right, so there's no need to force such combination. I could see (unlikely but not impossible) IF+E5, but EF+E5? No way.

Avoid saying nonsense if you don't want to be insulted.

[Galen]

Avoid saying nonsense if you don't want to be insulted.

Oh god you're killing me over here

[Creepy-pikachu]

I think Jung attributes mimicry to extraverted functions. Science attributes dopageneric connectivity to extraversion. Enneagram attributes "dopamine" to assertive types (3,7,8), with withdrawn types are "low dopamine."

Note that in science, dopamine itself (absolute levels of) isnt the factor, but how the system is built for it is.

It is all kind of jumbled, really, but the interesting thing is, and excuse my usage of intentful key words, that biological introverts to withdraw to certain areas of their mind habitually to modes of "self talk," due to a stronger/shoter connectiveness to areas of the brain condusive of this internal activity. This is not the same thing as simply thinking, FWIW.

What becomes confusing is that extraversion does not mean social and introversion does not mean asocial. I think this is where MBTI really fucked up. How does this relate to Enneagram, however?

[Creepy-pikachu]

Oh god you're killing me over here

To be fair, this forum is hypocritical with that sentiment, lol.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Avoid saying nonsense if you don't want to be insulted.

Should I be scared? Sure you're a sort of "special" EF+E5 that proves this situation is possible...

[Creepy-pikachu]

Should I be scared? Sure you're a sort of "special" EF+E5 that proves this situation is possible...

If correct.

[MensSuperMateriam]

If correct.

Who?

[Galen]

Who?

I assume Mikemex, who in my interactions has been E6 as a motherfucker

[MensSuperMateriam]

Good Guy Galen

[Galen]

Enneagram five is usually view as the land of introverts. ENTp is the only sociotype that (to some degree) is usually accepted as E5 capable. Some people even suggest ENTj as a remote possibility. In my opinion, none of them should be valid. Regardless how well balanced a particular extrovert could be.

Agreed.

The core of E5 implies that the subject tends to withdraw from the external world (introversion). If "left alone", this natural impulse predates most of the behavior causing the user becomes unbalanced (as happens with all enneagrams). But my point is that this "harmful trend" which the user should learn to compensate, is natural to this personality. Given any E5 subject, most of the time this should be counterbalanced instead of forced.

The withdrawing nature is only part of the main fixation, from what I can tell. 5s will habitually place too much weight on perception and understanding on a cognitive level, and by doing so to an extreme degree they essentially remove themselves from their experience of the world. This emphasis on the cognitive over the experiential is why I find it impossible for any XXFx to also be a 5, the motivations and reactivity patterns don't add up.

This is not compatible with extroversion. Sure any extrovert could be pensive, reclusive and such, but this is not the natural trend. Extroverted functions are "broad" whereas introverted ones are "deep" for the same area of work. Where an intellectual extrovert would want more (quantity: information, theories, whatever) an introverted one would want better (quality). Seeking the deepest truth is much more an introverted thing. Obviously introversion, as a behavioral characteristic, is not black/white. All intermediate points should be possible, but if someone is in the middle, there's no reason for calling him/her ILE istead of LII...

This whole idea is far too binary, black-and-white to be accurately applied to most people.

I think the idea that ILEs can be E5 originates in the common association E5=intellectual, thinker. Most ILEs whould describe themselves as such, and also they're seen in this way by others. But being an "intellectual" does not imply E5, it's required something more: a certain motivation. This motivation, in the case of ILEs, fits much better in E7. The E5 mimicking is caused by an internalization of the desired object, instead a real detachment from it (E5 requisite). ILEs are Ti egos, and Ti (despite all of its potential) has certain trend to reify ideas, which are almost seen as "real objects". The detachment required for being an E5 is not really happening. While playing (E7, broad, quantity) with this imaginary objects, interaction with real physical world is almost not required. The more you play the less you interact (intuition helps here, but not a requisite).

I've seen ILEs as fitting for 3s, 6s, and 7s. There might be an off-chance of an E9, but I've never come across an E5 ILE. Those who would self-type as such are probably Sx-last or some shit.

Where are you reading E5 "mimicking" from? I haven't seen anything pertaining to that before, unless you mean people who have mistyped as E5s and try to act like they are.

I have doubts about the validity of interrelationships between enneagrams, but if we accept them, ILE+E5 becomes even more improbable. E5 degenerates in the path to E7.

Adding integration/disintegration into the mix seems like overcomplicating the issue.

If we could associate a single function to an enneagram, E7 and Ne are a very good match. So do ILEs degenerate as they become closer to their leading function, the core of their psyche???

I've known Ne types, not necessarily ENXps but INXjs as well, who fit into pretty much any E-type except for E8. ENXps can easily be E7s though, and I've known many of such a combo in my time. 7 > 6 > 3 > 9 > 2 or thereabout.

Well Jung said that emphasizing too much the first function causes unbalance. But LIIs as crea-Ne, they achieve balance through Ne. LII positive development should be then in the direction of E7, instead being this a degenerative pathway...

I would think overemphasizing any function, regardless of if it's primary or not, would lead to some sort of psychic imbalance.

[golden]

Some helpful posts here. I do associate E5 strongly with introversion and socionic introtims, but I don't see E5 as totally unsuitable for an EXXx. I think @Morcheeba self-types EIE + E5, and I haven't seen anything overtly off about that combination for her even if this is just a forum and I don't know her well. Her recent thread about depersonalization might tie in here, but it would be up to her to say just how to interpret it in light of those typings, if at all.

Also, on the subject of intellectualism/E5, a merely observational note: I type my mom and a longtime friend both as ILI E5, and neither of them is an intellectual per se, but they both are strongly mental, critical, and withdrawing. A different longtime friend I type ILI E5, and he's a philosophy professor and has always been profoundly intellectual; he could possibly be seen as an E6 with a 5 wing, though.

I haven't met anyone I'd call an ILE E5, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility. My first instinct is I'd think that an EXXx with a strongly accentuated Xi subtype would be a more likely candidate for E5 than one with an Xe sub. Like ENFj-Ni 5 I could imagine, but ENFj-Fe, based on the people I have typed thus, is harder to picture.

[Korpsy Knievel]

You mean a nail?

No.

I remember your opinion about this everything looks like a nail from a former thread. Something like you start with a tool that allows you making more tools (agree) so I'm not really sure about your point.

Best of luck bludgeoning your black swan to death.

[mu4]

Some helpful posts here. I do associate E5 strongly with introversion and socionic introtims, but I don't see E5 as totally unsuitable for an EXXx. I think @Morcheeba self-types EIE + E5, and I haven't seen anything overtly off about that combination for her even if this is just a forum and I don't know her well. Her recent thread about depersonalization might tie in here, but it would be up to her to say just how to interpret it in light of those typings, if at all.

Also, on the subject of intellectualism/E5, a merely observational note: I type my mom and a longtime friend both as ILI E5, and neither of them is an intellectual per se, but they both are strongly mental, critical, and withdrawing. A different longtime friend I type ILI E5, and he's a philosophy professor and has always been profoundly intellectual; he could possibly be seen as an E6 with a 5 wing, though.

I haven't met anyone I'd call an ILE E5, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility. My first instinct is I'd think that an EXXx with a strongly accentuated Xi subtype would be a more likely candidate for E5 than one with an Xe sub. Like ENFj-Ni 5 I could imagine, but ENFj-Fe, based on the people I have typed thus, is harder to picture.

I think most Exxx 5s would have introverted subtypes. The thing about socionics that differs greatly from MBTI is model A which predicts not merely the "strength" of functions, but determines things like direction of information flow and function positions.

You could probably say E5 is introversion correlated and intuition correlated. The thing about the external world is that it's as much a sensing disconnect as it is a introversion disconnect.

[lemontrees]

I don't think there's a one-to-one correlation between E5 and Socionics introversion (the orientation of one's base function), although it would be more probable for introtims to be introverted. For instance, there are certain extroverted functions that one can engage in one's head, Ne being one of them. From what I've read of E5's, it seems that they are constantly gathering new information and seeing how it fits into their existing knowledge structures, and I think that Ne + Ti could actually be perfect for that, even in that order.

I know two SLE E5's, and have met E5 ILE's, EII's, and probably other ethical/extroverted types. I know this sounds improbable but if you met them you would see how it's possible! The SLE's keep somewhat to themselves, and read a lot/gather a ton of information on various subjects, and are generally anxious about competence, although they do not seem to have problems with exerting physical force when necessary, and enjoy exercising. They might be defined, also, by how intensely private they are.

I think that competence can be thought of in terms of a general anxiety about dealing with the world, and a desire to retreat into analysis to feel more safe, and not the relative strength of one's physical vs. mental functions (i.e. sensing v. intuition). The SLE E5 girl I know that I am somewhat close to (I say "somewhat close" because I do believe that I am one of the closest people to her, although I think she's both E5 and sx-last, so it has to be placed within context) has no problems with...physically handling overeager dogs, for example, or being generally ambitious in a Se-like way, and our interactions feel a lot more like mirage than benefit. And yet people who don't know her find her off-putting, and others have described her to me as seeming cold, arrogant, or "not human," when in fact she's actually very sensitive and kind.

I have an ILE friend who I'm pretty sure is E5, but I also think he's avoiding me for the moment because I got too emotional and needy...not sure what his stackings are. He's more random/takes more risks with reaching out to people than LII E5's that I've observed (or maybe is just too Fi-PoLR to see the risk??), but still has that particular focus that is different from the intellectualism of E7's. We studied the same subject in college and used to write each other long emails about what we were reading. I know another ILE E5 that's sp/so and married to an sp/so EII woman.

I'm not really close to an E5 ethical type, so I don't have any specific anecdotes about those. I don't think that there's any direct incompatibility between E5 and ethics, though, even if improbable, since the Enneagram supposedly describes certain maladaptive life strategies formed in reaction to early childhood environment and traumas.

[mikemex]

Should I be scared? Sure you're a sort of "special" EF+E5 that proves this situation is possible...

Me? You're the one claiming shit. You do not understand Socionics types. You seem to assume that you can talk in terms of "thinking" and "feeling", as it was rationality and emotionality, when dealing with logical and ethical types. But I'm sorry to tell you that you're just mixing stuff in your head without actually getting it.

[Creepy-pikachu]

[MensSuperMateriam]

This whole idea is far too binary, black-and-white to be accurately applied to most people.

Only if we think in functions as real. What I said applies viewing function Xe as a pole in a range, and Xi as the opposite pole. I do not agree with the way functions are usually seen or interpreted. In my opinion they are much more like "forms" or "apparances" that surface from underlying psychological processes, not the same processes. Explaining this in a detailed way would require a lengthy post and a proper thread.

More or less agree with the rest you said.

[MensSuperMateriam]

I think @Morcheeba self-types EIE + E5, and I haven't seen anything overtly off about that combination for her even if this is just a forum and I don't know her well. Her recent thread about depersonalization might tie in here, but it would be up to her to say just how to interpret it in light of those typings, if at all.

I do not know her but IMO what happens to her fits better in E4 or even disintegrated E1. She seems an interesting person, anyway.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Me? You're the one claiming shit. You do not understand Socionics types. You seem to assume that you can talk in terms of "thinking" and "feeling", as it was rationality and emotionality, when dealing with logical and ethical types. But I'm sorry to tell you that you're just mixing stuff in your head without actually getting it.

I've never used thinking and feeling terminology. You're probably projecting a desire of being something to your perception and reasonings. Sorry, but reality is what it is, and you have to adjust to it, not the other way around.

[mikemex]

I've never used thinking and feeling terminology. You're probably projecting a desire of being something to your perception and reasonings. Sorry, but reality is what it is, and you have to adjust to it, not the other way around.

Not in name but you seem to think that there is an intrinsic difference between Ti types and Fi types when it comes to mental activity. Intellectualism on both sides is different but equivalent. Introverted and rational funcions (Xi) are self sustaining and perfect candidates for E5.

[Galen]

Not in name but you seem to think that there is an intrinsic difference between Ti types and Fi types when it comes to mental activity.

If there was no difference between Ti and Fi types' mental activity then there'd be no point in creating that delineation in the first place.

Intellectualism on both sides is different but equivalent. Introverted and rational funcions (Xi) are self sustaining and perfect candidates for E5.

Xi applies to all introverted IEs, broseph. And you still ain't no 5.

[Creepy-pikachu]

Im looking for a meme thats like, "Logs onto the internet. Thinks he is E5." with a 1990s souped up PC in the background, lol.

[mikemex]

And you still ain't no 5.

Just because you say so? An easy way to tell which type you are is to observe the directions of both integration and stress. Were I a six like you say, under stress I would move in the direction of a three and grow in the direction of a nine. But I'm not really concerned about "success" at all, much less under stress and certainly I do not grow by becoming passive and contemplating like a nine. Observing how my life has been, I'm in line with the tendencies of a five more than six: under stress I become scatter minded (which I'm not when I'm healthy, despite being an IEE; I'm very commited to my ideas and projects and I don't wander much from them) and when I'm relaxed I become assertive and self-confident like an eight.

Now that I think about it, in the enneagram scale you're very unealthy.

[Galen]

Just because you say so?

Because you've demonstrated a pattern of projecting assumed motivations and arguments onto people and twisting arguments around what you *think* they're really trying to say. I see this in 6s very often, not so much in 5s at all unless they see a clearly demonstrated habit of double-speak.

An easy way to tell which type you are is to observe the directions of both integration and stress. Were I a six like you say, under stress I would move in the direction of a three and grow in the direction of a nine. But I'm not really concerned about "success" at all, much less under stress and certainly I do not grow by becoming passive and contemplating like a nine.

Success in and of itself is not my concern either, nor is that the nature of disintegration to three. And nobody grows simply from becoming passive.

Observing how my life has been, I'm in line with the tendencies of a five more than six: under stress I become scatter minded (which I'm not when I'm healthy, despite being an IEE; I'm very commited to my ideas and projects and I don't wander much from them) and when I'm relaxed I become assertive and self-confident like an eight.

No way I do too

Now that I think about it, in the enneagram scale you're very unealthy.

oh man this guy
this guy right here
whoooo

[MensSuperMateriam]

Not in name but you seem to think that there is an intrinsic difference between Ti types and Fi types when it comes to mental activity. Intellectualism on both sides is different but equivalent. Introverted and rational funcions (Xi) are self sustaining and perfect candidates for E5.

You have no clue about how I see functions, because I have not explained it. Take a look to what I said to Galen.

Very noticeable the mantra "you don't understand Socionics" in a former post. A clear attempt for presenting yourself as an authority, and at the same time, unathorizing myself. No real argument. As I said nothing about this particular topic, all you mentioned are assumptions.

Some people are not interested in applying this model better than anyone, but in understanding reality, what could correlate a bit or nothing with all of this. Your fixation with authority (people, models) is consistent with E6. Also you behaved as offended by my ideas (!) in your fist post.

I clearly expressed in the OP that I do not consider E5 more intellectuals, intelligent or whatever, but you mention this. Are you afraid that not being E5 could make you less, maybe? Whatever enneagram you are, stop whining if you don't achieve "E5 recognition" and discuss it (if you want) in a proper thread.

FWIW, I'm considering two extroverted types for myself, one of which is even ethical. No bias about this particular topic.

[MensSuperMateriam]

Im looking for a meme thats like, "Logs onto the internet. Thinks he is E5." with a 1990s souped up PC in the background, lol.

Don't forget a nerd face

[Radio]

MIKEMEX YOU ARE NOT AN E5, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND DIE

[Creepy-pikachu]

Don't forget a nerd face

[Korpsy Knievel]

I look forward to explanations of fiving correctly.

[mikemex]

You have no clue about how I see functions, because I have not explained it. Take a look to what I said to Galen.

Very noticeable the mantra "you don't understand Socionics" in a former post. A clear attempt for presenting yourself as an authority, and at the same time, unathorizing myself. No real argument. As I said nothing about this particular topic, all you mentioned are assumptions.

Some people are not interested in applying this model better than anyone, but in understanding reality, what could correlate a bit or nothing with all of this. Your fixation with authority (people, models) is consistent with E6. Also you behaved as offended by my ideas (!) in your fist post.

I clearly expressed in the OP that I do not consider E5 more intellectuals, intelligent or whatever, but you mention this. Are you afraid that not being E5 could make you less, maybe? Whatever enneagram you are, stop whining if you don't achieve "E5 recognition" and discuss it (if you want) in a proper thread.

FWIW, I'm considering two extroverted types for myself, one of which is even ethical. No bias about this particular topic.

You and @Galen give me headaches.

All members of the thinking triad are intellectuals. They just vary in the kind of intellectuality each one possess. Sevens are more comfortable with an empirical approach to learning: they want to experiment and find by trial and error what works, what is true, etc. See @woofwoofl for example; I don't know him at all but from the brief conversations I've had with him, he's visibly concerned about finding patterns (like where to met a certain type, etc) from his hands on experience. A five is in the other extreme: he figures out things by reflexing, by analyzing, by deducing. Pretty much by staying away from the world so it doesn't interferece with his neutrality. Six is an ambivert that isn't fully skilled in either mode so is always unsure, chronically seeking reassurance from other, more confident types.

Any other notion about such enneatypes is merely your prejudice. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in there pointing to introversion, logic or anything else.

[Galen]

You and @Galen give me headaches.

No, you're giving headaches to yourself with your overinflated ego bolstering.

All members of the thinking triad are intellectuals. They just vary in the kind of intellectuality each one possess. Sevens are more comfortable with an empirical approach to learning: they want to experiment and find by trial and error what works, what is true, etc. See @woofwoofl for example; I don't know him at all

MAYBE THIS SHOULD TELL YOU SOMETHING

Any other notion about such enneatypes is merely your prejudice. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in there pointing to introversion, logic or anything else.

Try again, dipshit.