Results 1 to 22 of 22

Thread: VI and Childhood Pics

  1. #1
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default VI and Childhood Pics

    Hey Everyone,

    So I’ve spent the past two years studying multiple personality theories (MBTI, Jung, Enneagram), but have been unable to find my type in a majority of the systems I’ve gotten into. I’ve heard that Socionics is a fairly accurate personality classification system, so I figured that I might as well try to find my type over the summer. Before I develop inevitable biases, however, I wanted to see what others initial impressions might be regarding my type via visual identification. I was hoping that you could type me based on some pictures that I have had taken of me up to this point in my life. Thing is, I’m only sixteen years old so I haven’t fully matured yet. I only have pictures of my childhood up to this point in my life. I guess they’ll have to do. Here they are:




    Last edited by Limitless; 03-19-2015 at 04:15 AM.

  2. #2
    Haikus Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    22,740
    Mentioned
    531 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    SLE

  3. #3
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Fe INFp . Pictures of current self would do . He sure looked like a happy child whats-up ???

  4. #4
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Do you think pictures of childhood would be more accurate, or should it be adult?
    I think a lot it’s been hormones and I’ve been very self-absorbed. I don’t know though, I sometimes wonder if there’s something more going on.
    Last edited by Limitless; 03-19-2015 at 04:16 AM.

  5. #5
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    post all you've got, dude. ftw.

    ofc post-hormonal adult pics are way more relevant in typing.

    classic IEI-Fe mascot face anyway.

  6. #6
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You look like Sergey Yesenin, the dude socionists use as shorthand for IEI.


  7. #7
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Sienna @GOLDEN So is it (VI) usually accurate?
    Last edited by Limitless; 01-20-2015 at 09:57 PM.

  8. #8
    the Dreamer Remiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Canopy of Memories
    TIM
    Ni-ILI 584 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,116
    Mentioned
    37 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    "The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools." ― Thucydides

  9. #9
    2 EVIL I golden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Several stories high
    TIM
    EIE prob 6
    Posts
    2,969
    Mentioned
    106 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Limitless View Post
    @Sienna @GOLDEN So is it (VI) usually accurate?
    Probably. It's part of the totality of what I can know about a person, right?

    VI from a still photo isn't as good as from a video or irl, and sometimes a person VIs pretty easily, other times not as easily.

    Specifically, you do look like Mr. Yesenin.

    Generally, people evaluate other people's personalities based on their appearance anyhow, socionics or not.

     

    From http://www.newscientist.com/article/...e#.VL7fFyvF-So

    THE history of science could have been so different. When Charles Darwin applied to be the "energetic young man" that Robert Fitzroy, the Beagle's captain, sought as his gentleman companion, he was almost let down by a woeful shortcoming that was as plain as the nose on his face. Fitzroy believed in physiognomy - the idea that you can tell a person's character from their appearance. As Darwin's daughter Henrietta later recalled, Fitzroy had "made up his mind that no man with such a nose could have energy". Fortunately, the rest of Darwin's visage compensated for his sluggardly proboscis: "His brow saved him."

    The idea that a person's character can be glimpsed in their face dates back to the ancient Greeks. It was most famously popularised in the late 18th century by the Swiss poet Johann Lavater, whose ideas became a talking point in intellectual circles. In Darwin's day, they were more or less taken as given. It was only after the subject became associated with phrenology, which fell into disrepute in the late 19th century, that physiognomy was written off as pseudoscience.

    Now the field is undergoing something of a revival. Researchers around the world are re-evaluating what we see in a face, investigating whether it can give us a glimpse of someone's personality or even help to shape their destiny. What is emerging is a "new physiognomy" which is more subtle but no less fascinating than its old incarnation.

    First impressions are highly influential, despite the well-worn admonition not to judge a book by its cover. Within a tenth of a second of seeing an unfamiliar face we have already made a judgement about its owner's character - caring, trustworthy, aggressive, extrovert, competent and so on (Psychological Science, vol 17, p 592). Once that snap judgement has formed, it is surprisingly hard to budge. What's more, different people come to strikingly similar conclusions about a particular face - as shown in our own experiment (see "The New Scientist face experiment").

    People also act on these snap judgements. Politicians with competent-looking faces have a greater chance of being elected, and CEOs who look dominant are more likely to run a profitable company. Baby-faced men and those with compassionate-looking faces tend to be over-represented in the caring professions. Soldiers deemed to look dominant tend to rise faster through the ranks, while their baby-faced comrades tend to be weeded out early. When baby-faced men appear in court they are more likely than their mature-faced peers to be exonerated from a crime. However, they are also more likely to be found guilty of negligence.

    There is also a well-established "attractiveness halo". People seen as good-looking not only get the most valentines but are also judged to be more outgoing, socially competent, powerful, sexually responsive, intelligent and healthy. They do better in all manner of ways, from how they are greeted by other people to how they are treated by the criminal justice system.

    Is there any substance to such snap judgements? Are dominant-looking people really more dominant? Are baby-faced people naive? Are we electing the most competent leaders, or simply people who look the part? As psychologist Alexander Todorov of Princeton University points out, the fact that different people come to remarkably similar conclusions about a particular face is very different from saying there is a correspondence between a face and something real in an individual's personality.

    There is, however, some tantalising evidence that our faces can betray something about our character. In 1966, psychologists at the University of Michigan asked 84 undergraduates who had never met before to rate each other on five personality traits, based entirely on appearance, as they sat for 15 minutes in silence (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 4, p 44). For three traits - extroversion, conscientiousness and openness - the observers' rapid judgements matched real personality scores significantly more often than chance.

    More recently, researchers have re-examined the link between appearance and personality, notably Anthony Little of the University of Stirling and David Perrett of the University of St Andrews, both in the UK. They pointed out that the Michigan studies were not tightly controlled for confounding factors: the participants could have been swayed by posture, movement, clothing and so on. But when Little and Perrett re-ran the experiment using mugshots rather than live subjects, they also found a link between facial appearance and personality - though only for extroversion and conscientiousness (British Journal of Psychology, vol 98, p 111).

    While these experiments suggest that our snap judgements of faces really do contain a kernel of truth about the personality of their owner, Little stresses that the link is far from clear-cut. He and Perrett only found a correlation at the extremes of personality, and other studies looking for links with different aspects of personality have failed to find any association at all. The owner of an "honest" face, for example, is no more likely to be trustworthy than anyone else.

    What is also not fully understood is why we make facial judgements so readily. Is there an evolutionary advantage to judging books by their covers? Little suggests that because these judgements are so rapid and consistent - and because they can indeed reveal aspects of personality - it is likely that evolution has honed us to pick up on the signals.

    Support for this, and the kernel of truth idea, has come from a study of 90 ice-hockey players published late last year by Justin Carré and Cheryl McCormick of Brock University in Ontario, Canada. They found that a wider face in which the cheekbone-to-cheekbone distance was unusually large relative to the distance between brow and upper lip was linked in a statistically significant way with the number of penalty minutes a player was given for violent acts including slashing, elbowing, checking from behind and fighting (Proceedings of the Royal Society B, vol 275, p 2651).

    Testosterone-fuelled

    They also found a link between the facial width-to-height ratio and the male sex hormone testosterone. According to the results of a recent pilot study by Carré, men with wider faces have higher testosterone concentrations in their saliva.

    The critical - and as yet unanswered - question is whether people judge men with wider faces as more aggressive. McCormick and Carré are studying this, and though the results are not all in, McCormick says a preliminary analysis suggests that they do.

    If this pans out, it would mean that men with high testosterone levels, who are known to be bigger, stronger and more dominant, are more likely to have rounder faces - and that we evolved to judge such faces as aggressive because their owners are more likely to attack us. Carré stresses, however, that the face is only one of many cues that we use to read the intentions of others. "It is not the be all and end all of assessing people."

    The kernel of truth idea isn't the only explanation on offer for our readiness to make facial judgements. Leslie Zebrowitz, a psychologist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, says that in many cases snap judgements are not accurate. Our readiness to judge books by their covers, she says, is often an "overgeneralisation" of a more fundamental response (Social and Personality Psychology Compass, vol 2, p 1497).

    A classic example of overgeneralisation can be seen in predators' response to eye spots, the conspicuous circular markings seen on some moths, butterflies and fish. These act as a deterrent to predators because they mimic the eyes of other creatures that the potential predators might see as a threat, or are simply conspicuous in their own right.

    Zebrowitz says the same thing may be true of our reaction to baby-faced men, who on first impression are generally judged to be submissive and naive. Just as an eyespot is not an eye, so a person with a baby face may not be babyish, but an observer is likely to respond as if they are, she says. It is a similar story with our reaction to unattractive faces, which she says is an overgeneralisation of an evolved aversion to people who are diseased or suffer from some genetic anomaly. There is also "familiar face overgeneralisation", whereby people are judged to have the traits of others who they resemble.

    Another researcher who leans towards overgeneralisation is Todorov. With Princeton colleague Nikolaas Oosterhof, he recently put forward a theory which he says explains our snap judgements of faces in terms of how threatening they appear. Todorov and Oosterhof asked people for their gut reactions to pictures of emotionally neutral faces, sifted through all the responses, and boiled them down to two underlying factors: how trustworthy the face looks, and how dominant. They then worked out exactly which aspects of facial appearance were associated with looking trustworthy, untrustworthy, dominant or submissive.

    Next they generated random faces on a commercial program called FaceGen and morphed them into exaggerated caricatures of trustworthy, untrustworthy, dominant or submissive faces. An extremely trustworthy face, for example, has a U-shaped mouth, and eyes that form an almost surprised look. An untrustworthy face has the corners of the mouth curled down and eyebrows pointing to form a V (see diagram).

    Finally, they showed these faces to people and asked them a different question: what emotions did they appear to be expressing? People consistently reported that trustworthy faces looked happy and untrustworthy ones angry, while dominant faces were deemed masculine and submissive ones feminine.

    Todorov and Oosterhof conclude that personality judgements based on people's faces are an overgeneralisation of our evolved ability to infer emotions from facial expressions, and hence a person's intention to cause us harm and their ability to carry it out (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 105, p11087).

    Todorov, however, stresses that overgeneralisation does not rule out the idea that there is sometimes a kernel of truth in these assessments of personality. "I would not say there is no accuracy at all in these judgements, particularly in the case of dominance," he says. "It is not the case that overgeneralisation and kernel of truth ideas are mutually exclusive."

    So if there is a kernel of truth, where does it come from? How exactly do some personality traits come to be written all over our faces? In the case of the ice-hockey players there are links between facial appearance, testosterone levels and personality. But there are other possibilities.

    Perrett has a hunch that the link arises when our prejudices about faces turn into self-fulfilling prophecies - an idea that was investigated by other researchers back in 1977 (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol 35, p 656). Our expectations can lead us to influence people to behave in ways that confirm those expectations: consistently treat someone as untrustworthy and they end up behaving that way.

    "Infants with masculine faces grow up to be children and adults with masculine faces," Perrett says. "Parental and societal reactions to these cues may help shape behaviour and personality. In essence, people would be growing into the character expected of their physiognomy."

    This effect sometimes works the other way round, however, especially for those who look cute. The Nobel prize-winning ethologist Konrad Lorenz once suggested that baby-faced features evoke a nurturing response. Support for this has come from work by Zebrowitz, who has found that baby-faced boys and men stimulate an emotional centre of the brain, the amygdala, in a similar way.

    But there's a twist. Baby-faced men are, on average, better educated, more assertive and apt to win more military medals than their mature-looking counterparts. They are also more likely to be criminals; think Al Capone. Similarly, Zebrowitz found baby-faced boys to be quarrelsome and hostile, and more likely to be academic high-fliers. She calls this the "self-defeating prophecy effect": a man with a baby face strives to confound expectations and ends up overcompensating.

    There is another theory that recalls the old parental warning not to pull faces, because they might freeze that way. According to this theory, our personality moulds the way our faces look. It is supported by a study two decades ago which found that angry old people tend to look cross even when asked to strike a neutral expression. A lifetime of scowling, grumpiness and grimaces seemed to have left its mark.

    This takes us back to Darwin himself. He referred to how "different persons bringing into frequent use different facial muscles, according to their dispositions; the development of these muscles being perhaps thus increased, and the lines or furrows on the face, due to their habitual contraction, being thus rendered more conspicuous." Once again, Darwin was ahead of his time: in an intriguing way, we get the face we deserve.

    Read our related article: Fearful expressions evolved to mimic babies' faces

    Find out how our experiment worked, and see the results

    The New Scientist face experiment
    Our experiment examined whether some subtle aspects of our psychological make-up might be related to facial appearance, while offering readers the chance to appear on the cover of this issue in a composite image.

    We asked readers to submit a photograph of themselves looking directly at the camera, and to complete a simple online personality questionnaire. In this they rated how lucky, humorous, religious and trustworthy they considered themselves to be. More than 1000 people were kind enough to submit their photographs and ratings.

    From these personality self-assessments we identified groups of men and women scoring at the extremes of each of the four dimensions. We then took these people's photographs and blended them electronically to make several composite images.

    The face-blending technique we used was pioneered more than a century ago by the Victorian polymath Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin. The principle behind it is simple. Imagine having photographs of two people who look very different. To create a composite we manipulate digitised versions of the images to align key facial landmarks such as the corners of the mouth and eyes. This allows us to calculate an average of the two faces. For example, if both faces have bushy eyebrows and deep-set eyes, the resulting composite would also have these features. If one face has a small nose and the other has a large nose, the final image would have a medium-sized nose.

    The composites all looked very different from one another, but would people be able to identify the personalities of the people behind the images? To find out, we paired up composites from the extreme ends of each dimension and posted them online at www.facesexperiment.co.uk. So, for example, the composite face from the women who had rated themselves as extremely lucky was paired with the composite from those who had rated themselves as very unlucky. More than 6500 visitors to the site attempted to identify the lucky, humorous, religious and trustworthy faces.

    From this it seems that women's faces give away far more than men. An impressive 70 per cent of people were able to correctly identify the lucky face, and 73 per cent correctly identified the religious one. In line with past research, the female composite associated with trustworthiness was also accurately identified, with a statistically significant 54 per cent success rate. Only one of the female composites was not correctly identified - the one from the women who assessed themselves as humorous.

    The results for the male composites were very different. Here, our respondents failed to identify any of the composites correctly. The images identified with being humorous, trustworthy and religious all came in around chance, whilst the lucky composite was only correctly identified 22 per cent of the time. This suggests that our perception of lucky-looking male faces is at odds with reality.

    Why should these big sex differences have emerged? Perhaps female faces are simply more informative than male ones. It could also be that the men who sent us their portraits were less insightful when rating their personalities or less honest. Or perhaps the women were more thoughtful when selecting the photographs they submitted.

    The results of our pilot study were fascinating and should hopefully pave the way for additional work. They show that people readily associate facial appearance with certain personality traits, and suggest that therhe may be a kernel of truth in their judgements.

    Our findings explored some dimensions not usually examined in this kind of research, and raise the intriguing possibility that, among women at least, subtle aspects of an individual's personality may indeed be written all over her face.

  10. #10
    both sides, now wacey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Canada
    TIM
    9w8
    Posts
    3,288
    Mentioned
    124 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    To me, you VI as an ethical person. Maybe a little shy as a kid? Yet still willing to participate if given the right nudge. Have you tried some of the socionics tests before?
    "If this to end in fire, then we should all burn together. Watch the flames climb higher into the night."

  11. #11
    Olly From Wally World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wally World
    Posts
    822
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I did also initially think type and IEI when looking at the pictures. I see the stuff. And I do believe in VI to an extent but more than looking at physical features (I may do so with the look in their eyes and expression though), I sorta use the pictures as a backboard for imaging how the person would be in real life. I think childhood pics are good because we are less aware especially the pictures taken when we aren't aware a picture is being taken.

  12. #12
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Mby expression is more pure in a way ...does this say enough about Sociotype ??? Almost all kids are cute and they can be made to smile for the photos by their parents , because , cough , that's what should be done . How many are Fe or Fi in their functions ??
    I find a conscious look when someone is more grown - up presents more information about type . I like observing ' the how' and not only the what. How does the person face the camera and how seriously does he take it ?? Is he / she aware of the public or sort of in his own world ? Does he care how he appears to others ?? Does he try to copy an image , is he natural ?? All this kind of questions that I go by when I try to VI. I don't only compare photos with what Socionics offers us as 'models' ( celebrities used , I mean ) . But for Limitless I agree he is a tinier Yessenin . Mby he writes poetry as good . Enneagram 4 ??? staaack ..??
    Last edited by Amber; 01-21-2015 at 01:18 PM.

  13. #13
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't know bibles about Enneagram but heyo , I see here plenty of SO and mby SX . Im not stating an opinion on the order ...

  14. #14
    when you see the booty Galen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    everywhere at once
    Posts
    8,449
    Mentioned
    203 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You appear to be very E3, even though I know that's not what you're looking for.
    "And above all, watch with glittering eyes the whole world around you because the greatest secrets are always hidden in the most unlikely places. Those who don't believe in magic will never find it." -Roald Dahl

    http://forum.socionix.com/
    It's pretty cool

  15. #15
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,893
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Looking back at the pics of two people, I am confident fit the IEI personality type, I could see a resemblance to what people think IEI should look like. BUT, I also know their personalities at that age too so I think my knowing how they spoke and acted really influences me seeing IEI for them, in the childhood pics.

    Your facial expressions actually remind me more of my ESE sister when she was very young. Not that I am even going to try and guess your type. I think at 16 I was searching for who I wanted to be. Lots of people tried to tell me, "you are not this or that", "who do you want to be?", "are you going to be this reckless your whole life?"... blah, blah, blah.

    I kind of remember being a 9 year old total nerdy, little, bookworm. I was content to play alone with my Barbies and read Shakespeare for hours but then people started telling me that I needed to go out and play with other children and that I needed fresh air and sunshine. It isn't what I wanted at that age. A couple years earlier I was a sociable child and loved to ask people all kinds of questions about life and what, why, where, how. Most adults would tell me I was too young to know the answers to most of the questions I asked and dismissed me. It was like I couldn't win kind of situation no matter what I did. I was being pushed and pulled by adults to be who they wanted me to be and it didn't matter what I wanted. I thought that I would never do that to a kid when I grew up.

    My personality has undergone so many changes since my childhood that it is amazing that I even know who I am now, but I do. When people told me to put down my books and go play, I took it to heart and I played hard. I played myself into lots of trouble but I wouldn't trade one moment of it. It is like an experience toolkit I have to draw from. I am not against typology for teens but I am also not about influencing someone to the point that they start behaving in a way contrary to who they might have been.

    I am not sure I know where the line of right/wrong influence lies and I probably made mistakes with my younger family members along the way. Like when I was all into the "indigo children" stuff and told one that he was indigo and damn if he didn't jump right into that role and really display all the traits I told him he had. :/ If I had left him alone I wonder if he would have been less neurotic and free to be himself. Now, sometimes, I feel like he carries the weight of changing the mass beliefs of reality on his shoulders and sometimes I blame myself when he has a bad day. I did what I thought was right at the time though. I wanted him to know he was ok for being "different" and I worked with the beliefs I had at the time. As an adult he now identifies with IEI. I might have told him he was one back then too if I had the information.

    Good luck discovering or creating yourself...



    Edit: I also considered myself an indigo child. Maybe I still do, on some level.
    Last edited by Aylen; 01-21-2015 at 05:20 PM.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  16. #16
    Haikus
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Berlin
    TIM
    LSI 5w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,421
    Mentioned
    144 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    E 3 - 4 peak >> he kind of looks 3, but what he says is rather 4-ish . (talks feelings freely, accepts the idea of sensitivity, doesn't repress or sweep under the rug negative experiences)

    sp last most likely >> who else could have written that rant so bravely? then nonchalantly talk about hormones. I don't know the OP enough though, so this is just a first impression. Not a super-private and 'self-protective' person (ofc, his age also contributes to this)

    anyway in all this bunch of pics I see a face that is fundamentally charged with bright energy. I think depression is not something deriving from temperament, only a transitory state.

  17. #17
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,893
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sienna View Post
    anyway in all this bunch of pics I see a face that is fundamentally charged with bright positive energy. I think depression is not something deriving from temperament, only a transitory state.
    Amen!

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  18. #18
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    anyway in all this bunch of pics I see a face that is fundamentally charged with bright energy. I think depression is not something deriving from temperament, only a transitory state.
    Thank you! It feels like I’ve been stuck in a rut forever now. I was always SO smiley when I was litte 

    To me, you VI as an ethical person. Maybe a little shy as a kid? Yet still willing to participate if given the right nudge. Have you tried some of the socionics tests before?
    It’s been a while since I’d made this post so I’ve learned a lot about Socionics since then, but I usually test intuitive, so IEI’s still a possibility. Also EIE and IEE since I feel like my duals Se-ego, maybe Si.

    For enneagram, I think I’ve already said its difficult finding what type I am but for instinctual variants I feel like maybe SO SX, SP “blind spot.” When I first read the descriptions I thought I was SP first because of how I feel like I need a lot of space, but when I looked at why SPs are self-preserving I was hardly even conscious it was an actual reaction (I didn’t know people ever thought about materials they need for feeling comfortable) My core type IS either 3 or 4, most likely. I think I’m probably 3 because I relate a lot to the cycle of “Need to be admired -> self-improvement -> admired -> Need to be admired” My understanding is that both 3 and 4 seek significance, which I can relate to a LOT, especially with all the wanting to be liked/attention. Could someone please explain the differences between these significances? Because I’ve looked for it and from what I’ve found it sounds like 3’s like to feel significant to others, while 4’s like to feel significant to themselves. If that’s the case, I’m think I’m probably 3 and not 4 since I feel like I need to know if other people like me.

    Edit: Nevermind I have no idea what my enneagram is.
    Last edited by Limitless; 02-03-2015 at 06:18 PM.

  19. #19
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It was like I couldn't win kind of situation no matter what I did. I was being pushed and pulled by adults to be who they wanted me to be and it didn't matter what I wanted.
    @Aylen I think that’s part of the reason I’m so interested in typology, it helps me understand myself (and everyone else too) better. All of those dinner-table family discussions about identity and place in the family really bothered me, and so I’d always want to know for myself who I was for real, not just who they were telling me. I think being able to look here and see people who are actually trying to figure out who they really are, instead of just trying to fit themselves into what they’d like to be seen as, is a helpful thing for me, because its reminding me that behind all of those dinner-table discussions about fitting into stereotypes, people really are looking for who they are. It’s nice to know you can relate!

  20. #20
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,893
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Limitless View Post
    @Aylen I think that’s part of the reason I’m so interested in typology, it helps me understand myself (and everyone else too) better. All of those dinner-table family discussions about identity and place in the family really bothered me, and so I’d always want to know for myself who I was for real, not just who they were telling me. I think being able to look here and see people who are actually trying to figure out who they really are, instead of just trying to fit themselves into what they’d like to be seen as, is a helpful thing for me, because its reminding me that behind all of those dinner-table discussions about fitting into stereotypes, people really are looking for who they are. It’s nice to know you can relate!
    This sounds a little bit like my family. We are primarily an introspective lot and like to discuss all kinds of typology and some of it borders on the fringe sometimes. I think we each have found our place in discovering information then getting together and sharing what we find with each other. I my dysfunctional, amazing, weird family. I could not have chosen better people to explore this world with. There are also people not born into my family that I now consider family because of the experiences we shared.

    “The bond that links your true family is not one of blood, but of respect and joy in each other's life. Rarely do members of one family grow up under the same roof.”
    ― Richard Bach, Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah
    ^ Illusions is an excellent book, btw, should you ever come across it.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  21. #21
    Limitless's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    108
    Mentioned
    25 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    ^ Illusions is an excellent book, btw, should you ever come across it.
    Lol. Thanks for the recommendation, apparently its a powerful book. I think it'd be a good idea for me (I haven't spoiled the plot, I just looked at some reviews). I'll look forward to reading it!

  22. #22
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,893
    Mentioned
    732 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Limitless View Post
    Lol. Thanks for the recommendation, apparently its a powerful book. I think it'd be a good idea for me (I haven't spoiled the plot, I just looked at some reviews). I'll look forward to reading it!
    I am actually reading the whole book again, now, after suggesting it to you. Usually I just keep a small copy of the "Messiah's Handbook" next to my copy of the "Tao Te Ching", close to me, at all times.



    Amazon.com Review

    Readers of Richard Bach’s Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, will recall that said messiah, Donald Shimoda, carried with him a small book entitled the Messiah’s Handbook. According to Shimoda, all Bach had to do was, "Open it, and whatever you need to know is there." Now, decades after Illusions was first published, Bach has made the handbook available to all of us "advanced souls in training."Rather than reading it cover-to-cover, Bach counsels us to close our eyes, focus on the question we want an answer to, then open the handbook at random, open our eyes and read what’s on the page. In this regard, Messiah’s Handbook can be likened to a 21st century version of the I Ching or The Book of Runes, with the same appeal to readers who enjoys such works. Each page is composed of a single, thought-provoking aphorism.

    As with all of Bach’s books, at the heart of Messiah’s Handbook is his encouragement to his reader to follow the drumbeat of their dreams without compromise or apology, knowing that we can have what we desire so long as we believe we can. Used as directed, Messiah’s Handbook is a delightfully insightful guide for making those dreams come true.--Larry Trivieri Jr. --This text refers to an alternate Hardcover edition.
    “Your only obligation in any lifetime is to be true to yourself. Being true to anyone else or anything else is not only impossible, but the mark of a fake messiah. The simplest questions are the most profound. Where were you born? Where is your home? Where are you going? What are you doing? Think about these once in awhile and watch your answers change.”

    Richard Bach, Messiah's Handbook: Reminders for the Advanced Soul
    Like I said before, I am not sure where the lines of right/wrong influence lie, in these situations, so please keep this in mind.

    “Everything in this book may be wrong.”

    Richard Bach, Messiah's Handbook: Reminders for the Advanced Soul

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







Posting Permissions

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