No.Originally Posted by machintruc
No.
Consider the context, Isha. He has a prejudice against Reactives (Fours, Sixes and Eights), hasn't ever read what Joy has said about herself, and has never met Expat.
Personally, I think it's easier to imagine niffweed as a Five than it is to imagine you are.
Why is McNew's being a One shocking to you? He's an EII.Rmcnew ... a 1?That suggestion wins first prize in the Absurdity Contest.
No, I think Herzy's being a Seven, my being an Eight, tcaudilllg's being a Five, Fabio's being a Seven, Kristiina's being a Three, liveandletlive's being a Seven and UDP's being a One is glaringly obvious.
Why are there no SEE Eights or IEI Fives? Look: INFP Fives are quite common, and INFJ Fives can be found.
I am 100 % sure that both niffweed and I are Fives. It's rather irrelevant which one is easier for you to see as a Five, since we are both very clear Fives.
No, he is an IEE.
Because every Five and every Eight is a logical type.
No. They don't exist.
.
Every E1 is J : there are rare cases of SLI's for example
Every E2 is F : there are rare cases of LSE's for example
Every E3 is E : mostly, but I found a significant amount of cases of LSI's, and less frequent cases of ESI's and SLI's
Every E4 is N : globally, they're mostly Intuitive, but what do you think of SEI's ? besides, there are rare cases of LSE's.
Every E5 is IT : mostly, quite frequent cases of ILE's and LIE's happen in the case of an Intimate Five
E6 is mostly IJ : true. Cases of IP types happen (SLI, ILI) ; as well as quite frequent cases of EJ (LIE, EIE, LSE), and rare cases of EP (IEE)
Every E7 is P : mostly, but you may find some cases of LSI's and ESI's, as well as ESE's and EIE's, or even LIE's.
Every E8 is E : it's easy to find LSI's, and there are rare cases of ESI's and SLI's.
Every E9 is IP : globally, Nines are mostly IEE's. Less frequent cases of ILE's or EII's can be found.
The J-ness of E1 is totally obvious, so how can a clear IP type belong there? What exactly is the typing method you use to determine that it is really an SLI, and that that SLI is an E1 for sure? It is much, much, much, more likely that it is either not an SLI or that the SLI is not an E1. A much more simple explanation that you cannot have any objective reason to dismiss.
The same aruguments apply here. If it is a clear example of an E2, then it is not a LSE but more likely an ESE.
No. There are lots of LSIs that can easily be mistaken for E3s due to their obsession with positions of power etc. But they are still E1s, and they identify with being E1s (I have tested them). An outside observer who don't understand their real motivations might think that they are E3s though.
SEIs can't be E4s because SEIs are clearly (in every single case) S types. LSEs can of course not be E4s, that doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe you mistake some of them for E4s due to their obsessions with New-Age stuff, conspiracy theories etc. (not true of the majority of LSEs, but I have seen it in one LSE I know IRL).
They might test as E5s, but are they really E5s? They certainly don't have the same typical E5 attitudes as I do. I strongly doubt that they really are E5s, but it doesn't make as little sense as your previous suggestions.
The ILIs are mistyped. They are probably 5w6s. The SLI is the problematic type in the Enneagram because it doesn't fit naturally anywhere. I really don't care much where you put it (as long as you don't put them in E1, E2, or E4), but it makes most sense to put all of the SLIs in E5 due to theirPoLR and creative
.
There are certainly no LSI in E7. That is totally out of the question -- it's a contradiction in terms. Get rid of that insane idea immediately. You simply cannot put two opposing temperaments in the same Enneagram type. It is of course equally insane to put an ESI there. Impossible. And I don't believe that there are any ESEs, EIEs, or LIEs there. I think that FDG has mistyped himself in one of these two systems. Either he is not an E7 but an 8w7, or he is not a LIE. I cannot see any strong reason why that is not still a possibility. The Enneagram is not so well defined that you can say with certainty that someone who have traits of both E8 and E7 cannot be one or the other. And if you are an LIE you should be an E8, not an E7.
The LSIs are most likely mistyped E1s, and the SLIs ... they are the problematic ones as usual, but it's not their fault, it's the Enneagram's fault.
No. Globally most Nines are definitely SEIs. No EIIs can be found -- they are mistyped IEIs in that case, or they are E6s or E4s. The IEEs are E7s -- all of them. You have Rick mistyped for sure. Some ILEs can identify strongly with E9, but when you observe their behaviours and attitudes more closely, you realize that they are really E7s too.
I confess that I have problems with the concept of a SEI as 4. I can see why some SEIs, to the outside observer, would appear as 4; but if you look at what really makes type 4 internally, I can't see how that would work. I think 4s are most obviously IEI; if you really want to stretch it, I guess some of the more non-E3 EIEs might then fit in 4, too. And a LSE who would be a 4 would be Bizarro-world stuff in my opinion.
Of course a SEI can easily identify with lots of 4 characteristics, but why would they be more like 4s than like 9s?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
SEI's are still more likely E9 than E4. E9 is the most frequent. E4 is next.
I would love to see a correctly typed SLI One, LSE Two, and LSE Four (this is most laughable, like an EII Eight). In fact, machintruc, do me favour and show me a video of these individuals. To me, they are almost completely contradictory.
Susan Sarandon : SLI-1
Milla Jovovich : LSE-2
Greta Garbo : LSE-4
I've never wrote that EII Eights existed. You need to consult an ophtalmologist
She's probably LSE
I wasn't saying that Reactive Types were evil. I said that I didn't like them. I consider myself as a friendly person, and I don't like hostile people. That's all.
Then who finds S+ phitypes hostile or S- phitypes friendly ?
Maybe I don't really understand 9's.
How come a positivist type is bound to be in the low serotonin group? I do think your classifications are too rigid, Phaedrus. I even know a SLI 7! The ennagram is not scientific, its descriptions are vague, so if you meet an: optimistic, energetic, a bit distracted, risk taking kind of person you can totally type him as both 7 and SLI or LIE! As well as IEE or ILE.And if you are an LIE you should be an E8, not an E7.
No 7 description in fact says that a seven is: punctual or unpunctual, organized or not organized, and here you can add al the typical J P kind of stuff
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Okay, I can see the case for Fe PoLR (regardless of whether or not she's an SLI), but what makes you so sure she's a One?
I've seen interviews of Milla Jovovich, and I've come to the conclusion that Rick is wrong about her being an LSE. I see Fe, whether she values it or not. She is certainly not Fe role.Milla Jovovich : LSE-2
I see IP temperament from the outset, which practically contradicts EJ, as it's the complete opposite. She's far more likely to be a Four than an LSE. What made you come to the conclusion that she was LSE?Greta Garbo : LSE-4
I was using that as a comparison with LSE Four. I see LSE and Four as almost completely contradictory, in the same was I see EII and Eight as almost completely contradictory.I've never wrote that EII Eights existed.
Nor was I inferring it.
I'd say these were quite common, to be honest. Si for Seven is like Se for Eight, in my eyes; a very good match. And there's no reason why a Seven shouldn't have Fe PoLR. Their motivation isn't to raise moods and emotionally effect others; it's to enjoy themselves. In essence, Fabio, Phaedrus isn't just rigid, he's unwilling to accept anything but his own truth; Phaetruth.
I'm not sure. She may be E5.
She's EJ,and Asking. Then LSE.
Or maybe she's just an E1 who tries to display lots of
On a Celebrity Benchmark she's been typed LSE by 100% of 4 socionists. I think that's quite reliable.
EII Eight is contradictory, due to. Statistically, E8 is the most "Sensing" type. Most exceptions are LIE, but I can't imagine an EII.
Even "pushy" EII's tend to be E6.
But I don't see how is LSE-4 contradictory.
why is she not Fe role? i think she's at least EXTx. i think the Fe that she shows is much more situational and probably even what would could be construed as "false Fe" by a real Fe type.
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
Maybe EJ, maybe Si, but I see no reason to confirm LSE on the basis of a fucking Reinin dichotomy.She's EJ,
...Or maybe she's just an E1 who tries to display lots of
I don't understand where you get that notion from at all.
And if 59% of seventy-two socionists said she was Beta NF; what would you say then?On a Celebrity Benchmark she's been typed LSE by 100% of 4 socionists. I think that's quite reliable.
Explain why you think she's a Four.
Okay, perhaps not contradictory, but it makes no sense to me. The typical Four is an IEI; how could another Four value the exact opposite of this? Fours are characterised by their need for artistic self-expression and their typical interest in mysticism and the esoteric, which, as Ni PoLR individuals, LSEs couldn't give a shit about. It's beyond them. I just find the concept of Greta Garbo's being a Four a complete head-fuck. You don't even need logic to show that it's not true; you can just say it isn't, because it so obviously isn't.But I don't see how is LSE-4 contradictory.
I have no qualms with Sevens who are Si types. It makes perfect sense, as I described to Fabio.
Why do you think "she's at least" a Logical Extratim type? I don't know why you think her Fe could be deemed false either. Can Barack Obama's Fe be deemed false? Ronald Regan? Hamlet?
Reply With Quote
