Is this possible?

[Park]

Can an SLI and an EIE be the same Enneagram type?

What do you think?

[Phaedrus]

Can an SLI and an EIE be the same Enneagram type?

What do you think?

Totally impossible of course.

[Ezra]

Of course, there is everyone's favourite Enneagram type; the Six. I think you could definitely find an SLI Six and an EIE Six.

Concerning other types, machintruc claims that he knows of an example of an SLI Three, and I doubt he'd doubt the existence of an EIE Three. I doubt he does know of a correctly type SLI Three, but the possibility remains. Some may argue for the existence of a SLI Seven and an EIE Seven. Perhaps the same goes for Eight. Past this, I see it as very, very unlikely.

[Phaedrus]

Of course, there is everyone's favourite Enneagram type; the Six. I think you could definitely find an SLI Six and an EIE Six.

That's probably the best shot, but it still doesn't work.

Concerning other types, machintruc claims that he knows of an example of an SLI Three

Such a creature simply doesn't exist. And almost everything machintruc says about the Enneagram types is wrong.

[Brilliand]

That's probably the best shot, but it still doesn't work.

Such a creature simply doesn't exist. And almost everything machintruc says about the Enneagram types is wrong.

Enneagram doesn't even use Jung's system... I would expect it to work on a completely different level. And how can you prove that something doesn't happen?

[Elro]

And how can you prove that something doesn't happen?

Reductio. (It's the only logical technique I know of that sounds like a Harry Potter spell.)

[Phaedrus]

Enneagram doesn't even use Jung's system... I would expect it to work on a completely different level. And how can you prove that something doesn't happen?

There is no definite formal proof, of course, but you can try demonstrate its ridiculousness and unlikelihood.

The enneagram types have at least one dimension along the four dichotomies that is very obvious: Every 1 is a J, every 2 is an F, every 3 is an E, every 4 is an N, every 5 is an IT, every 6 is ... well, this is not as clear as some of the other types, but most of the 6s are certainly IJs (ISFj is the prototypical type), every 7 is a P, every 8 is an E, and every 9 is an IP. You can probably make finer distinctions than that, and for example say that every 8 is not only an E but also a T. And you can say that every 4 is not only an N but also an F and most likely also an I. So, if you want to claim that an SLI and an ESFj can be the same type in the Enneagram, you have to find a place for them where they can exist together without ceasing to exist -- it must make sense and be in line with the four dimensions.

[Park]

Of course, there is everyone's favourite Enneagram type; the Six. I think you could definitely find an SLI Six and an EIE Six.

Concerning other types, machintruc claims that he knows of an example of an SLI Three, and I doubt he'd doubt the existence of an EIE Three. I doubt he does know of a correctly type SLI Three, but the possibility remains. Some may argue for the existence of a SLI Seven and an EIE Seven. Perhaps the same goes for Eight. Past this, I see it as very, very unlikely.

How about an SLI 4 and an EIE 4 ?

[Ezra]

How about an SLI 4 and an EIE 4 ?

The Four's major concern with individuality seems to go against Si base, and for a type who sees so much importance in personal expression, Te creative seems even more unlikely. I'd be very interested to hear someone's case for an SLI Four, explaining how the kind of creativity of and the strong emotional expression of the Four resonates with extremely dry, peaceful, go-with-the-flow character of the SLI.

I see little problem in a Four's being an EIE. Although they're more likely to be of the IP temperament (and thus IEI), this is still a possibility.

[Park]

I'd be very interested to hear someone's case for an SLI Four, explaining how the kind of creativity of and the strong emotional expression of the Four resonates with extremely dry, peaceful, go-with-the-flow character of the SLI.

Well that's just on the outside, of course. I will speak for myself but I think that most other SLIs are also very different on the inside, having a rich and emotionally vivid (and vulnerable) inner world. I do recognize my super-ego functions in type 4 descriptions, but they are still explained in a way I can relate to them. I also have a huge inclination towards creativity and strong emotional expression, thru art forms for example, while still preserving my relatively dry, peaceful and pleasure seeking character.

The Four's major concern with individuality seems to go against Si base, and for a type who sees so much importance in personal expression, Te creative seems even more unlikely.

I don't see a reason for this to be true.

[jessica129]

Well that's just on the outside, of course. I will speak for myself but I think that most other SLIs are also very different on the inside, having a rich and emotionally vivid (and vulnerable) inner world. I do recognize my super-ego functions in type 4 descriptions, but they are still explained in a way I can relate to them. I also have a huge inclination towards creativity and strong emotional expression, thru art forms for example, while still preserving my relatively dry, peaceful and pleasure seeking character.

I definetly agree with this. You worded that well. For the longest time I typed myself a 4 but in general, 6 is the only one that was completely accurate across the board.

[Phaedrus]

I definetly agree with this. You worded that well. For the longest time I typed myself a 4 but in general, 6 is the only one that was completely accurate across the board.

Based on what you say here, in combination with the information in your signature, we can conclude that you cannot be an ESTp. Among the remaing three types the one that fits the 6 best is the ISTj, but if it is true that you have identified rather strongly with type 4 in the past, you cannot really be an ISTj either. That leaves us with ISTp or INTp as the two most likely types (again only based on the information I have access to right here and right now).

If you are an INTp you should identify most with type 5, and since you don't seem to do that the likelihood for ISTp increases. On the other hand, the INTp is closer than the ISTp to type 4. Type 6 is not a perfect type for any of those two types, but type 6 is an S type, which increases the likelihood for ISTp again. And since both the INTp and the ISTp are IP types, you should identify with the described behaviour of type 9 to at least some not too insignificant extent, and if you don't do that, then there is something clearly wrong with your typing in at least one of these two models.

[jessica129]

Based on what you say here, in combination with the information in your signature, we can conclude that you cannot be an ESTp. Among the remaing three types the one that fits the 6 best is the ISTj, but if it is true that you have identified rather strongly with type 4 in the past, you cannot really be an ISTj either. That leaves us with ISTp or INTp as the two most likely types (again only based on the information I have access to right here and right now).

If you are an INTp you should identify most with type 5, and since you don't seem to do that the likelihood for ISTp increases. On the other hand, the INTp is closer than the ISTp to type 4. Type 6 is not a perfect type for any of those two types, but type 6 is an S type, which increases the likelihood for ISTp again. And since both the INTp and the ISTp are IP types, you should identify with the described behaviour of type 9 to at least some not too insignificant extent, and if you don't do that, then there is something clearly wrong with your typing in at least one of these two models.

I don't identify with type 5 in the slightest. And just for the record, my signature is meant to be humorous. There is no way on gods green earth i'm an ESTP but i found it amusing the multiple types people have been throwing at me lately so thus the signature.

[Park]

hi jess

[Ezra]

Well that's just on the outside, of course. I will speak for myself but I think that most other SLIs are also very different on the inside, having a rich and emotionally vivid (and vulnerable) inner world. I do recognize my super-ego functions in type 4 descriptions, but they are still explained in a way I can relate to them. I also have a huge inclination towards creativity and strong emotional expression, thru art forms for example, while still preserving my relatively dry, peaceful and pleasure seeking character.

You may be interested in this. There's a lot about creative expression here.

Misidentifying Fours and Nines

Some average Nines think that they are Fours because they have artistic talents and creative inclinations of one kind or another. As in the case of love not being the sole domain of Twos, artistic capacity is not the sole province of Fours. Other types can be, and often are, artists.

Even so, the artistry of Fours is much more personal and self-revealing than that of Nines. The art of Nines often expresses idealized, mythological, and archetypal worlds–usually the real world glossed into something fantastic and wondrous. Nines are often gifted storytellers in which "...and they all lived happily ever after" is assured. (There are no unhappy endings in the Nine's world of make-believe.) By contrast, the art of Fours is generally more personal and realistic, the expression of the Four's (and of everyone's) deep longing for love, wholeness, and meaning. Fours often deal in the tragic, finding redemption in self-transcendence; Nines deal in the commonplace, finding comfort in ordinary lives and simple situations.

The principal reason these types may be confused is that they are both withdrawn types. (PT, 433-36). Fours withdraw from others so that they can protect themselves and give themselves time to deal with their emotions. Nines, on the other hand, are withdrawn in the sense that they remove their attention from people or situations that threaten them, disengaging themselves emotionally so that they will not be anxious or upset. They cut off their identification with others (or never identify with them in the first place), identifying instead with a private idealized version of reality. Average to unhealthy Nines tune out any unpleasantness by dissociating from whatever upsets them, whereas Fours do just the opposite, brooding over their anxieties in an attempt to come to terms with them. Fours are certainly not detached from their emotions–just the reverse, they are keenly aware of them, perhaps too much so.

Both types can therefore be shy, absent-minded, confused, and detached from the real world. The difference is that Nines are detached both from the external world and from their emotions, whereas Fours withdraw from whatever has caused them pain. (In the end, that may add up to quite a lot.) Nines see the world through rose-colored glasses, and their view of it is comforting, whereas Fours see the world from a garret window as outsiders and are not comforted: everyone else seems to be living a happier, more normal life. Contrast the personalities of Mahler (a Four) and Aaron Copland (a Nine), Saul Steinberg (a Four) and Norman Rockwell (a Nine).

I definetly agree with this. You worded that well. For the longest time I typed myself a 4 but in general, 6 is the only one that was completely accurate across the board.

You still think you are SLI, yes?

Based on what you say here, in combination with the information in your signature, we can conclude that you cannot be an ESTp. Among the remaing three types the one that fits the 6 best is the ISTj, but if it is true that you have identified rather strongly with type 4 in the past, you cannot really be an ISTj either. That leaves us with ISTp or INTp as the two most likely types (again only based on the information I have access to right here and right now).

If you are an INTp you should identify most with type 5, and since you don't seem to do that the likelihood for ISTp increases. On the other hand, the INTp is closer than the ISTp to type 4. Type 6 is not a perfect type for any of those two types, but type 6 is an S type, which increases the likelihood for ISTp again. And since both the INTp and the ISTp are IP types, you should identify with the described behaviour of type 9 to at least some not too insignificant extent, and if you don't do that, then there is something clearly wrong with your typing in at least one of these two models.

Phaedrus, I think your thinking is too narrow. You make it seem as if certain possibilities are implausible, when they're quite plausible. For example, what's wrong with a Six identifying with the ILI? And why can't a Five be an SLI?

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I think your thinking is too narrow. You make it seem as if certain possibilities are implausible, when they're quite plausible. For example, what's wrong with a Six identifying with the ILI? And why can't a Five be an SLI?

Some ILIs could probably identify with type Six to some extent, but type Five is without doubt the natural home for the ILI. And I have never said that an SLI can't be a Five. That is probably one of the best boxes to put the SLI in, due to the many similarities between SLIs and ILIs, especially their Fe PoLR and Fi HA. If we go by test results combined with an attempt to find a correlation between Enneagram types and Socionics functions, we probably should put the SLI in box Five.

I have posted my view on the best fits before, but I could do it again for clarity's sake.

Ones are leading
Twos are leading
Threes are leading
Fours are and sometimes -- they are INFs
Fives are creative and most typically also leading
Sixes are leading and most often also creative
Sevens are leading
Eights are leading
Nines are leading and most often also creative

If we want to, there is nothing to prevent us from choosing to define the Enneagram even more narrowly. We can decide to say that every SLI must be a Five, etc. Their is nothing in the Ennegram that rules such a course of action out, and it would actually make the Enneagram system more elegant.

[Park]

You may be interested in this. There's a lot about creative expression here.

Originally Posted by Riso & Hudson

Misidentifying Fours and Nines

Some average Nines think that they are Fours because they have artistic talents and creative inclinations of one kind or another. As in the case of love not being the sole domain of Twos, artistic capacity is not the sole province of Fours. Other types can be, and often are, artists.

Even so, the artistry of Fours is much more personal and self-revealing than that of Nines. The art of Nines often expresses idealized, mythological, and archetypal worlds–usually the real world glossed into something fantastic and wondrous. Nines are often gifted storytellers in which "...and they all lived happily ever after" is assured. (There are no unhappy endings in the Nine's world of make-believe.) By contrast, the art of Fours is generally more personal and realistic, the expression of the Four's (and of everyone's) deep longing for love, wholeness, and meaning. Fours often deal in the tragic, finding redemption in self-transcendence; Nines deal in the commonplace, finding comfort in ordinary lives and simple situations.

The principal reason these types may be confused is that they are both withdrawn types. (PT, 433-36). Fours withdraw from others so that they can protect themselves and give themselves time to deal with their emotions. Nines, on the other hand, are withdrawn in the sense that they remove their attention from people or situations that threaten them, disengaging themselves emotionally so that they will not be anxious or upset. They cut off their identification with others (or never identify with them in the first place), identifying instead with a private idealized version of reality. Average to unhealthy Nines tune out any unpleasantness by dissociating from whatever upsets them, whereas Fours do just the opposite, brooding over their anxieties in an attempt to come to terms with them. Fours are certainly not detached from their emotions–just the reverse, they are keenly aware of them, perhaps too much so.

Both types can therefore be shy, absent-minded, confused, and detached from the real world. The difference is that Nines are detached both from the external world and from their emotions, whereas Fours withdraw from whatever has caused them pain. (In the end, that may add up to quite a lot.) Nines see the world through rose-colored glasses, and their view of it is comforting, whereas Fours see the world from a garret window as outsiders and are not comforted: everyone else seems to be living a happier, more normal life. Contrast the personalities of Mahler (a Four) and Aaron Copland (a Nine), Saul Steinberg (a Four) and Norman Rockwell (a Nine).

That doesn't help a lot, unfortunately. I relate to parts of both of the opposed descriptions. Is this a part of a bigger article? Do you have a link or something?

[Ezra]

That is the whole article.

You might want to sign up for free and read about the other misidentifications.

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/misid/#matrix

Phaedrus, I still think you're a Ti ego type.

[Park]

Phaedrus, I still think you're a Ti ego type.

Who doesn't?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Why's this thread in the classical socionics section?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I see Te more than anything else. If you think he is Ti why not give us some examples?

[Ezra]

Who doesn't?

Himself; he thinks he's an ILI. misutii thinks the same. And when I said Ti type, I mean someone who is Ti ego, not just Ti valuing.

Why's this thread in the classical socionics section?

I once asked a similar question, and someone told me I was a Ti ego type.

and there are those who say he is IEI.

Isha and niffweed (I too used to think this).

I see Te more than anything else. If you think he is Ti why not give us some examples?

The basis of most of his arguments rely on his view of the types, which he likes to think is completely objective, and he pays a lot of attention to his logic and to the rationale of his argument, in typical Ti ego fashion. What makes people think he is not a logical type is that when you confront him with a direct question about the facts, he'll often ignore you, as if he has no answer for it, and when he challenges your position, he'll often offer little or no valid reasoning as to why you should change your position in some way. Personally, I view this as more to do with the fact that he's less interested in trying to logically convince you of his arguments and reasoning as he is in trying to convince himself. The only other explanation is that Ti is less important to him than, say, another function (i.e. another possible ego function), which would make him an ILE or an SLE, and this I highly doubt.

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, I still think you're a Ti ego type.

Think again, then. Scrutinize your assumptions if you want to find the truth. I can only be 100 % sure of my own type on this forum, but according to the empirical evidence you are a ego type, a LIE to be more precise.

[Ezra]

Think again, then. Scrutinize your assumptions if you want to find the truth. I can only be 100 % sure of my own type on this forum, but according to the empirical evidence you are a ego type, a LIE to be more precise.

What empirical evidence?

[Park]

Himself; he thinks he's an ILI. misutii thinks the same. And when I said Ti type, I mean someone who is Ti ego, not just Ti valuing.

Yeah yeah, I know all that, you didn't have to write it.

I once asked a similar question, and someone told me I was a Ti ego type.

Hahaha, you make me laugh hard sometimes.

Why's this thread in the classical socionics section?

Cause threads here get more attention than in "Alternative or Non-socionic Based Type theories" and the topic still fits partially and doesn't stand out much. Now what's YOUR problem with it?

[Park]

What empirical evidence?

Hahaha, that's Phaedrus' favorite. He likes to say this when he's ran out of REAL arguments. It's basically pointless, but it sounds scientific and as if he knows what he's talking about.

[Phaedrus]

What empirical evidence?

Your Global 5 result, your MBTI result, your Keirsey result ... you name it. The only thing you can point to in support of SLE is your own subjective (mis)understanding of the function and what some other members on this forum have told you. Every data that is not polluded by misinterpretations suggests LIE/ENTJ as the obvious type for you.

[Brilliand]

Your Global 5 result, your MBTI result, your Keirsey result ... you name it.

Them tests are subjective and sloppy. At least our typings are only subjective.

The only thing you can point to in support of SLE is your own subjective (mis)understanding of the function and what some other members on this forum have told you.

Fix his understanding of ... as that's where the flaw lies.

[Ezra]

The only thing you can point to in support of SLE is your own subjective (mis)understanding of the function and what some other members on this forum have told you.

I thought you thought functions were inferior to test results.

Fix his understanding of ... as that's where the flaw lies.

Se is one of the few functions I understand very well.

[Brilliand]

I thought you thought functions were inferior to test results.

He probably thinks that for this exact reason - that functions are more easily misinterpreted.

[Phaedrus]

Them tests are subjective and sloppy. At least our typings are only subjective.

No, are you an idiot or are you an idiot? The test results are clearly more trustworthy than any of the most popular typing methods used on this forum.

Fix his understanding of ... as that's where the flaw lies.

Yes, that's where the flaw lies.

[Phaedrus]

I thought you thought functions were inferior to test results.

That's a misuse of language. How can they possibly be inferior? How can you compare functions with a typing method? Your understanding of how relates to your own type is a total mess. Your test results are clear and immensely superior to any of your functions analyses.

Se is one of the few functions I understand very well.

You have either a totally deluded understanding of -- or you have a totally deluded understanding of your own behaviour. Which one is it?

[mikemex]

Among the remaing three types the one that fits the 6 best is the ISTj.

Interesting you mention this because I'm a 6 IEE.

[Phaedrus]

Interesting you mention this because I'm a 6 IEE.

No, you are not.

[Ezra]

Your test results are clear and immensely superior to any of your functions analyses.

Actually, I thought my analysis of the Jungian function's in conjunction with Augusta's was pretty good.

I guess you believe the reason test results are better is because they are objective and clearly defined, whereas my mind doesn't quite grasp the concept of Se. Well, I could say the same to you. Face the facts, and stop denying simple shit that doesn't fit in with your own world view.

You have either a totally deluded understanding of -- or you have a totally deluded understanding of your own behaviour. Which one is it?

My understanding of my own behaviour is good, as is my understanding of Se. Where does that leave you?

[Phaedrus]

My understanding of my own behaviour is good, as is my understanding of Se. Where does that leave you?

You contradict yourself. You believe that you are a J type in one model, and you believe that you are a P type in another model. You believe that you are an extraverted thinking type in one model, and you believe that you are an extraverted sensing type in another model. The four scales are nearly identical, and yet you see nothing wrong with the odd typing in this -- your typing as SLE in Socionics. ENTJ is perfectly consistent with your test result in Global 5 and all your other test results as well. The only thing it is not consistent with the rest is your claim that you are an irrational type in Socionics, namely the SLE. If you don't realize that you can't get those test results if you

1. Are SLE
2. Have a good understanding of your own behaviour

then you are deluded.