I've seen people assume that certain combinations can't exist. Why?
E.g. it's often said that LSI E8 is an impossible combination but how on earth would from TiSe ego block follow that E8 is not a possible enneagram type for it?
Enneagram vs socionics type - specific example
I've seen people assume that certain combinations can't exist. Why?
E.g. it's often said that LSI E8 is an impossible combination but how on earth would from TiSe ego block follow that E8 is not a possible enneagram type for it?
Many are convinced all combinations are possible, but in my experience unusual combinations are very rare. And no, TiSe + e8 is not normal, unless you're a serious weirdo ( which is, ofc, always a valid option) Vladimir Putin would be an example of LSI who gets typed either 8w9 or 6w5.
I hear you on it being not normal but why?Originally Posted by darya
Many are convinced all combinations are possible, but in my experience unusual combinations are very rare. And no, TiSe + e8 is not normal, unless you're a serious weirdo ( which is, ofc, always a valid option
& ahahah maybe I'm a weirdo after all
I have no scientfic explanation, it just doesn't occur in nature. Many cp e6's are mistyped as 8's anyway and that's probably what usualy happens. NOT saying it's impossible, I'm not sure about Putin's type for example. E8's I've personally encountered were all Se and Te base. So I'm still waiting for other unicorns ; )
OK to me it's just such a logical jump to connect enneagram and socionics in this way. Though yes, staying with the LSI example, I know Ti is usually described as a pretty mental function. In that way I can see a connection. Otoh, I find my Ti is often just instinctual if that makes sense. I can flesh it out in words if I want to but it works on a gut level a lot. I can feel it's different from mental version of Ti which I also have sometimes when I go into my 5 fixation.
If you really look at it though, 16 types with 8 enneagrams, is 128 possibilities, add a subtype and its 256, Add DNCH and its over 1000, add wings, add tri types, etc.... I mean, I barely know 20 people. Total. Everything is rare. Who knows enough to say somethings not?
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I'm pretty sure some type combos aren't possible. Like XXFx E5 makes no sense, nor do XXTx E2/E4 or IXXx E7. I'm also not convinced IXXx 8s can be a thing.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
The precise answer to this is that, to the extent you use the centers, the 3 are pretty similar to Jungian functions, especially head center~thinking and feeling/heart center to the feeling function. The third center in Gurdjieffian land might be the "physical" center hence related to sensation, but in many presentations is shown more as instinctual or will oriented, or action oriented. Jung associated action-orientation more with extraversion than with any function, and will with no specific one of the 4 functions. Instinct is probably most associated to irrational functions, albeit distinct strictly from any of them..and is closest to the physical/sensation portrayal.
The one complication is that being fixated in a center does not equal having a strong access to that center in all presentations (e.g. 3s may sometimes be portrayed as fixated in the heart center, but not necessarily anywhere close to as heart-oriented as 2s and 4s in the direct sense).
So I mean, it's a bit odd to get a Naranjo 4 with inferior feeling in the Jungian sense. OTOH if you just view a 4 as envy-driven in the most colloquial sense of the word, such an individual can obviously be of any Jungian type.
They may be rare but I don't think they're impossible. Of the above you've mentioned, I know an INFp E5, an INTp E4, and an ISFp E7.
Watch out, people, I'm divergent!
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
I think how you guys define the enneatypes and define the Jungian types is half the battle. If you define it one way, duh, it's possible, and another way, duh it makes no sense...like if you say E4 is oriented more by feeling than thinking, and then say they can be a Jungian thinking type, then eh, that's kind of literal contradiction.
Not that all definitions are equally sensible, but unlike the more Te-approaches to enneagram which are comfortable treating it literally like there's such a thing as a definite empirical enneagram type, I tend to see it as just a symbolic structure that you can map to reality in a multitude of ways, albeit some ways are less interesting and coherent than others.
When I argue something in enneagram, it's usually that it's an enlightening organization of the theory rather than it is the only way. For me it's like, why is this a natural mapping of the structure onto reality -- not why is this factually true of the types (because as far as I am concerned, nothing is factually true of the types in an interpretive sense, or nearly nothing).
Someone find me another IEI - Ni Harmonizing E6w5 692 So/Sx or im the rarest.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
With something like INFp 5, I think what someone has to decide is how much intuition contributes to a head center orientation. I do think a strong INFp with more Ni focus strikes me as more 4w5-like than 4w3-like.
Basically I think there's relations but not exact mappings from Jungian functions to the enneatype centers. I think mind-orientation and thinking-orientation are not quiiiite the same thing, so the fact that the enneatype centers are a bit vague (because really the only consistent thing is the overall theme of the triads) is part of the reason I can sometimes imagine leeway.
Like, I'm not sure E5s have to be strongly thinking types. I think at times they can be e.g. strong Ni types instead, without as much of a thinking focus in the strict logic sense of the word (but still show signs of all the impoverishment, avarice-based psychology, self-submergedness, and so forth)...they'd still be really mind oriented though.
the only LSI E8 I've ever "observed" was fictional, but I wouldn't rule it out (8w9 at least).
4w3-5w6-8w7
Nah, I'm pretty sure you don't
My bf is LSI 1w8, and he's quite weird. But it makes sense in that the 8 is not dominant, the same way that his Se is subservient to Ti.
1s can either be w9 or w2, not w8.
Okay so the thing is
E5's natural disposition lies in hyper-cognition, attempting to evaluate situations based on criteria separate from emotional bias. How does this fit with any XXFx type where value is placed in subjective experience?
@Galen on this personally I think the type which really needs to get rid of the subjectivity of experience (which BTW functionally I associate to feeling more than logic, and irrationality more than rationality) might even be more E6 than E5 (due to the over-fixation on absolute certainty). The one other way I see E6 showing up is something like an intuition-sensation conflict (due to blatant fear of reality) which bleeds over into E7, albeit expressed differently there.
Now we've clearly all seen the whole 5s needa detach and so forth thing, but I'm not sure that's one of the enneagram presentations I overly buy...a 5's VIRTUE rests in detachment, but I'm not sure they really are the quintessential detached type, or should be, if you will based on their placement on the enneagram.
The placement of E5/E4 near each other to me suggests both are focused more on their impoverishment and so forth than anything else. So both are subject-oriented, except I tend to find E5's orientation shows up more as extreme introversion (an unrelatedness to objects, in Jungian lingo, which Naranjo refers to when talking of pathological detachment) than as the F type of subjective valuation.
But it seems natural 4 is a wing to 5 simply because that's one neighboring perspective on the impoverishment (seeking the subjective sense of value/meaning that is missing, so to speak).
I think intensely Ni with mildly more relevant F than logic is possible (perhaps) for some 5w4, but very unlikely for 5w6. It's also possible 5w4 end up more or less close to pure intuitive introverts or introverted irrationals, with underdeveloped secondaries.
It's like, I think of E5's status as also involving E6 themes in that a profound unrelatedness to objects contributes to an uncertainty at how to discover meaning, at the extreme stages a fractured psyche where different constituent parts seem unrelated to one another.
This difficulty with establishing relatedness is to me the main profound reason they are not feeling types by default (and a rejection of experience for mind leaves them nowhere but the mind triad to be). An introverted perspective on feeling establishes connections of subjective relevancy based on the deeper nature of the subject, and this shows up in E4 when they tend to see their inability to establish connections in terms of probing what they haven't found in themselves (rather than having not found something external).
I've met INFjs who were E6s. Also ENFps, ISFjs, ESFjs can be E6s but hardly E5s. Never forget that the three basic types on Enneagram (3,6,9) are at the core of their respective centers, and some unknown mechanism makes them REPRESS and PREFER at the same time the basic faculty of Emotion(E3), Thought (E6) and Movement (E9). So regarding these three types any weird combination can occur occasionally. But with the other six types I agree that for example very hardly one finds a Feeling type E5 or E8. But these can also happen, I've met ESFp E8. Weird, but happens. About Putin he's E6w5 sexual subtype, counterphobic. For me its easier to type someone on Socionics once I know their Enneagram type.
An xEI is quite capable of neglecting their Fi, and if emphasis is placed on Ti they could evaluate what Fe picks up without emotional bias. Fe focuses on other peoples emotions. Similar to a sociopath, you can read others emotions without involving your own.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
An xEI is quite capable of neglecting their Fi, and if emphasis is placed on Ti they could evaluate what Fe picks up without emotional bias. Fe focuses on other peoples emotions. Similar to a sociopath, you can read others emotions without involving your own.
Fe focuses on what the user thinks the other "should" feel (and views that phenomenon as "disparate emotions" that can be easily changed/influenced)
and being a sociopath is only a mental disorder. it doesn't make you e5.
Sociopaths are more likely E3s and E8s. E8 is especially associated with this pathology from what I've learnt.
I would love to be a 5 core. Having lived with one (ILI) for years I know that I am not. Had I not had a close relationship with one I might be self-typing 549. He was probably 514. :/ I am sure of the 5 and 1. The 4 I am iffy on. Could have been a 3 since he worked out, excessively, to look good not to feel good.
I am sure anything is possible but some things are just less probable. Without LSI (E1) and, another, ILI (E1) exemplars in my life, I could have also self typed 1 since I thought I was a perfectionist.
Without comparison, to a real 7, I could easily identify with a 7 but on closer inspection... no way. Two years ago I might have even changed my self type to 854 had I not known enough 8s, irl. I was so convinced of my own aggressive climb to the top, not letting anything get in my way, of my chosen, career (not stripping). I wasn't into E types, during that time, but if I was I would have rethought the 459 thing.
I have considered myself a core 4 for over 10 years but I went through a period of time wanting to be a core 9 so, subconsciously, I amplified my 9 traits and repressed my 4 traits. At least in public. So maybe it is easier for others to think they are a type when they don't have a clear cut example of what it looks like. Same with the instincts, I think.
https://waysofwisdom.wordpress.com/2...gram-tritypes/
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
All being e5 seems to be about based on what I've read an intense preoccupation with/withdrawal into their own mental life, and an underlying fear of being helpless against their environment. Thom Yorke (Ni-IEI) usually gets typed as 5w4.
A five has to have knowledge prior to experience to feel comfortable in the experience itself. For instance, anytime I am learning something new, I do not like to perform in front of other people, such as playing the guitar, singing, dancing, playing basketball, etc. I have to learn on my own first, through my mind to feel competent enough. If I do not feel competent enough, I will resist engaging....period. Am I rusty on my dance moves? Do not try and pull me onto the dance floor. It isn't going to happen. By myself I can be a dancing maniac. I think it has something to do with being an observer and being overly conscious of being observed.
The same with intellectual endeavors. It's not until I think I have a certain grasp of a topic before I feel confident enough to assert my knowledge.
I am the same way. I'm probably a 9w1 but I do have 5 in my trifix.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
I do know these people, and I'm pretty sure, about 95% they are typed correctly in both MBTI and enneagram.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
fixing your eye on the possibilities for novel combinations ()...
I relate to this too and the ILI I mentioned wouldn't play his guitar for anyone, but me, after he graduated. He was so good, even got a scholarship to the musicians institute because he was that good. Yet he didn't have enough confidence that he was good enough. He never danced but he was was an excellent skater so he would speedskate when the rink was empty. His parents thought his problem was he had no drive to succeed but they were wrong. He had too much drive to be the best and would not show what he thought were his shortcomings. Thing is they were not his shortcomings at all. If he had any, they were of an ethical nature, not physical.
I think that relates to his 1 in his tritype more than his 5 though. He was very much in his head, when it came to logic, but once he worked something out his thoughts flowed and he could make a strong argument which was often very convincing to most people listening. This was definitely him, "Type 5 is the type that under-expresses their thoughts, keeping them inside themselves until they are absolutely sure they've figured them out".
I will rarely do something I am not good at unless someone, like my ese sister, makes me sing karaoke, but only after a couple of drinks. I will definitely dig my heels in and say no, without the liquid courage. Where this really applies to me is in the realm of logic. Not that I won't share thoughts that are illogical and irrational (cause I do) but I kind of like to be very clear before giving my opinions on anything in a public setting.
I think he and I both needed some strong Se in our lives. We just weren't getting any on the side.Ti as Mobilizing Function
The individual seeks clarity in his system of beliefs and understanding and enjoys entertaining new concepts and being included in philosophical discussions where new concepts and systems of thought are introduced. He is uncertain of the logical clarity backing his actions, and thus seeks external assistance in attaining a degree of reasonable competence in this realm. Structure is sought as more of a means to an end, a background guide to facilitate the growth of the individual's main goal.
Not saying any of this applies to you. Just some thoughts you inspired.Se as Suggestive Function
The individual is often characterized by his inertia. If left to his own devices, he may choose to do relatively little to interact with the outside world. When he does interact with the outside world, he often finds his activities to be empty and unfulfilling. To this individual, life is often characterized by periods of stimulation. For him, however, true stimulation is often spontaneous, and interludes between periods of stimulation are often characterized by tedium, inertia, and apathy. He is often not very adept at finding new areas of interest, and may seek to continue to reproduce past experiences instead of moving on to new things. In order to break out of this cycle, he requires an outside stimulus of spontaneity and activity. With such a degree of spontaneity introduced into his life, the tedium and perceived meaninglessness is replaced by a constant state of activity in which he can experience new things and escape from the confines of his own mind.He is additionally very indecisive. He may lack the ability to make important decisions, especially with regards to his own future. He may know what he wants to achieve out of life in a broad or long term sense, but will find it very difficult to set and finish the short term projects leading to it. In order to be able to act, he needs a tangible and definite stimulus from somebody well grounded in external reality and who has a clear picture of what must be done in a certain situation.
I was able to resist being overly Fe in the post.<-- until now
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
No I disagree.
then you're in the wrong type system, kid
Um is this your own system of enneagram where such wings are allowed? How?
Lol how can you be such an idiot to take that line of mine seriously? I was making a joke there in response to darya's.fixing your eye on the possibilities for novel combinations (
Not exactly an expression of high dimensionality Ne.
I get what you mean though I still don't see a fundamental contradiction here, even if we accept that anger can be directly expressed through this one cognitive tool (Se). After all, LSI can always turn to Se easily if they want to. What in Ti as leading function do you see as preventing an LSI from doing so?
I thought this was just a normal person thing. I mean most people are afraid of failure...
Um aren't you the one trying to make an argument for all possible combinations?
Maybe I am, bambino.
No, I was talking about the relation between socionics IEs and enneagram types. Not about variations on enneagram wings. So what system of yours do you have there?
One more clarification, I'm not making an argument for all imaginable combinations. Just about which ones can be excluded or not in a logical fashion.
True, but most normal people afraid of failure probably wouldn't label themselves as an observer of life as a five is apt to do. With a five, there is a hesitancy to become engaged with the world.
i don't really understand why E8 and LSI are so incompatible? (i mean, E8 and a logical type with Se, that is just totally NOT POSSIBLE! in other words, what?)
since no one need actually reference anything or define anything or state anything other than x variable vs. y variable vs. z variable in x system vs. y system vs. z system vs. whatever, then i don't need to either. i can just use these terms as they are and assume we all mean the same thing (when i'm sure we don't).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
