Ok, sorry then, I misunderstood the message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebula
Printable View
Ok, sorry then, I misunderstood the message.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nebula
Cute how you confused it :lol: I didn't put one and one together at first as well :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by WinnieW
I love trolling the humourless and easily overawed, because they are a gift that keeps on giving.Quote:
Originally Posted by tela
Just for the record, I have been a social outcast for most of my life. The isolation I had to endure has profoundly influenced my personality. However, I am not interested in competing for victim status with you. Unlike you, I don't let my past define my future, because you can't change the past. Not that any of these reflections even matter, as you are clearly battle typing here. Do not use Enneagram as an excuse to be mean-spirited and push a personal vendetta against me.
Seeing you brought up appearance, I will add that you would stand out as socially odd just like I do, albeit for very different reasons. You dress up entirely in black, cake on the makeup, then wander around, brooding, lost in your own darkness, hoping to both attract and repel. I have never judged you for your presentation in the past because I am not a hypocrite - unlike you.
If you want to know why people probably avoid you, just look back at the way your post to me was framed. It is full of passive-aggressive digs, slights and insults that only undermine your case. You are not alone because you are "weird" or a "freak".
You are alone because you choose to be.
Cuivienen has literature abbilities and psychological inclinations. I may disagree with the content, but the form is impressive.
I may imagine like he writes drama/horror scripts or novels.
If and when I focus, I can induce whatever emotions I wish in another person. Joy, serenity, lust, anger, sadness, disgust - it doesn't matter. As you have seen, people often respond in highly irrational ways to me, but rarely do they respond with indifference. Knowing this, I therefore must have a good sense of the most likely way someone will react to me in any given situation. I can assess someone's relationship potential with me very quickly, often within moments - although in the past, I often chose to bet against my intuition and proceed anyway to increase my chances, which was not a good idea (as not all opportunities hold equal potential). I constantly brainstorm visions of myself in an idealised future life in order to understand their meaning; to gain insight into what may happen, and how I can affect/bend the flow of reality to my advantage. I naturally perceive the relationship between cause and effect and all the possible ways an interaction of people, ideas or concepts may unfold. Therefore it is difficult to fool me, and dangerous to try. I will often find an unexpected (to others) way to get out of trouble, and when I close in for the kill, I will time my move in order for it to have the most profound emotional impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
you must want to induce a lot of disgust. all that power and you use it indistinguishably from someone without any super powers of influence, which is to say being gross. maybe this is like the manzoni of emotional influence, I will grant you, perhaps you have turned being a creep into an art form. interesting life choiceQuote:
I can induce whatever emotions I wish in another person.
Your idea of type 9 is.. interesting.
And wrong.
Allow me to demonstrate.
*Cracks fingers*
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by tela
Type 1 suppresses anger. Type 9 makes itself numb to it. Might seem like I'm nitpicking here, but the difference is notable.Quote:
9 suppresses anger.
You are describing type 1 very well, not type 9. Again, while you are right in that suppression of anger leads to a build-up, it is type 1 who is the shining example of this phenomenon.Quote:
So it builds up and the anger needs an outlet, which commonly is the internet since it feels like a safe-space.
What is the connection between anger and instinct? Instinct points towards the areas where we are more sensitive, making the area of the first instinct the most prone to such emotion. However, what about the Self Preservation instinct makes it more prone to anger in contrast with the others, in your opinion?Quote:
Sp/sx in my experience and opinion is a pretty angry stacking.
I don't see a connection to anger here. Moreover, it being "5-like" is incredibly vague and doesn't say much on its own. I can see the link between Social last and type 5, but it's an incredibly shallow one at that. Mostly because the motivation (and you cannot predict a universal behavior with type) will be incredibly different (unless you are talking about the Social last 5, but then the point you are making becomes redundant).Quote:
It's 5-like and can sometimes be oblivious to what it looks like because they're so submerged in their own selves because of being SP first and social last.
The guy had (has?) mental issues. Not the greatest example. It's like those teachers who immediately jump to ****** and Nazis when describing type 6. It can be fun and educational when talking about the types on the level of theory alone, given the right climate, but bringing this up as an actual example in regards to typing someone will hardly ever bring the desired results. (Unless the desired results are negative connotations and emotion, then you're good here.)Quote:
For example, I type Elliot Rodger as sp/sx 3w4.
Besides, one example does not a pattern make.
Unless you are basing their typing on your false ideas about type 9 and the (missing) link between instinct stack and anger that you propose. Meaning that you are typing people at Sp/Sx 9 based on the wrong premise of having "suppressed anger." If anything, your description of these experiences of anger points towards not 9.Quote:
Anyway, so this being an angry stacking and 9 suppressing aggression makes it especially reasonable for sp/sx 9 to be very aggressive online. Which is what I have experienced.
Connecting this to your typing of @Cuivienen , who self-types at 4, it would be rather easy to link the element of frustrated anger (that you perceive - I'm not claiming it exists) to the type's inherent connection to type 1. Or perhaps a 1 fix, if you fancy the tritype theory. Of course, this is assuming that there really is a strong pattern of suppressed anger here. All in all, it should point you away from type 9.
Betas induce shock and disgust with our trash talk, but we are secretly quite prudish.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Deltas by contrast are nothing more than whores who speak politely.
If you think someone must be "a creep" because they make a dirty sex joke in public, then you understand nothing about how real sexual predators operate. They are not dramatic, imposing and shocking, because they don't want to attract attention. Instead they try to blend in as much as possible. A man (or woman) like this will be well versed in social etiquette and will voice whatever beliefs are popular to espouse - all in order to seduce their target. They will almost never boast about their sexual escapades, and will often try to shame somebody who brings up the topic of sex as brutish and creepy (a very cynical form of projection). In fact the most sinful people are often those who present themselves as compassionate, tolerant, virtuous and enlightened - and this facade is essential, as it allows the rapist to serially prey on those of lower status without attracting any suspicion.
You are most likely to find sexual predators in an environment where people constantly express support for "women's rights".
The men who actually respect women do not care if our happiness goes unnoticed. As the saying goes: judge a man by what he does when he thinks that nobody else is watching.
i think creep is more about the impression someone makes, the meaning of the word is the resemblance to someone who does or might do something, not something we apply only to those who already have. for that we have the term "convicted felon"... its enough to avoid those people on those grounds. you ping the early warning system of decent people, purportedly intentionally, then suggest the moral defect in making such a provocation lies with the offended party. its not entirely wrong, because people could ignore you, true--but at the same time if you intentionally give off vibes that alienate people, knowing it will alienate people, I don't see how it makes it anything other than a conscious choice to accept their reaction, you were in fact counting on it all along. in that sense its just a weird way to try and paint yourself as a victim of your own choices. odd, but I'm sure there's someone out there who will like it. I think this person will likewise subject you to similar manipulations so it would be fun to watch you guys torture eachother, all the while the message between you will be how the crowd is wrong and people are dumbQuote:
If you think someone must be "a creep" because they make a dirty sex joke in public, then you understand nothing about how real sexual predators operate.
Attachment 12689Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuivienen
@Cuivienen I have no idea where you get this idea from that I am passive-aggressive. Feel free to point it out.
You feel like a really hateful and angry person and I'd rather not discuss anything with you anymore because all you do is take your hatred and your anger over I don't even know what, on this forum. Maybe it is because I rejected you when you sent me PMs a while ago. I don't know. Anyways, I don't really feel like getting dragged down to the miserable hole you're living in. And you obviosuly can't handle receiving constructive criticism about yourself. So consider yourself ignored.
A cockatoo with beta values. :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENN1UZl84gA
SCNR :P
it is strangely accurate :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal
its hilarious from several angles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Since the choosing of the words till the conception of the subtext.
"secretly quite prudish" is the best. Its a paradoxical statement, I mean, is it truly possible to be secretly prudish?
Then, a world conception which believes or suggests that population is divided between whores and not whores is hilarious in itself, and its more hilarious to notice that we are flood with it nowadays (sexually obsessed ppl, feminists and the rest of ideologies that reduces existence to mere sexuality are included, along with twisted religious beliefs), but the thing is that is an archaic moral conception before middle ages, its like we are living a modern moral primitivism (should be called whorecentrism, :lol:).
Sounds like something he's experienced in, hm :thinking:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuivienen
More points to his type anyways, keyword façade.
well its sort of like what is a whore? a whore is a term generated to cast one with open borders in the pejorative. betas are about closed strictly defined borders (Ni Ti), and this is where their authoritarian streak comes from (hence all the nazi comparisons), such that since we grant they are trash talkers, "whore" is just a provocative (Fe Se) label they apply to those who transgress those boundaries. in a way trash talking victorians is exactly right. deltas then become those into open borders but who aren't provocative in their speech (the novels of aldous huxley such as Island illustrate this kind of society--compare to orwells 1984 which demonstrate a worst case scenario beta society)... I agree that classifying people as actually promiscuous or not is kind of silly, but I do think openess (big 5) is a basic psychological dichotomy to which the quadra relate and cuviny did hit directly upon itQuote:
Originally Posted by Crystal
:thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Samson
sure. expresses and then... supresses
By definition a whore is someone who is sexually active outwith marriage, so, you could divide the world into the sexually active outwith marriage, and those within marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
But why you'd want to is another matter.
well you'd have to define marriage and sexual activity too. you'd also have to bound it within time, so like pre post marriage not just in individuals but within society (pre post the existence of the instutition of marriage). you'd also have to consider consent, so like if you're raped does that make you a whore (some cultures say yes), etc. you have cases where children are raped and because of autistic adherence to arbitrary categories they're labeled whores and cast out for transgressing the boundaries, etc that kind of bottom up autism is characteristic of strict borders, and in that sense whore goes back to borders
For things like these I refer to the proper definition: the Biblical ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
The preamble to every SJW rant since November 8, 2016.Quote:
Originally Posted by tela
You are shameless. Stop projecting your own unpleasant behaviour onto me and take some responsibility for your actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by tela
Here are some examples that are dripping wet with sanctimony:Quote:
Originally Posted by tela
Quote:
he always brags about himself and thinks he should have any girl in the world.
Quote:
he has that obliviousness sp/sx can have about how ridiculous and stupid he looks
Quote:
I don't really feel like getting dragged down to the miserable hole you're living in.
It gets even better. According to you: I only dislike you because you might've "rejected" me in a PM exchange. You also compared me to Elliot Rodger, a school shooter who was motivated by sexual frustration and jealousy.
This is not "constructive criticism". Again, that's just an excuse you (and others, such as Bertrand) use when someone confronts you on your BS. I have noticed you often use Enneagram typings as an excuse to take a shot at posters who you dislike.
Put me on ignore for all I care - my life will be a lot better without the likes of you.
Very interesting. I never considered Ti Ni like that before, but it makes lot of sense thinking in my past experiences with betas. Like now I can understand better their perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
The funny thing for me is the reductionism into rigid schemes. First to reduce existence to only sex, then to reduce it even more through popular aggressive moral term (whore). Now, reductionism is useful depending on context and field (when its pertinent), I mean, existence has its reduced schemes too, but that schemes cant be applied to all things all the time. Also its hilarious because betas boundaries can be kinda loose (Fe Se), still, they use rigid statements and terminology (guess because of aggression?). Ti Ni is like an ouroborical reasoning from my perspective. Now, ppl being promiscuous or not is a reality, as the definition of the words exist in language, so in certain sense is true, the funny part is the reduced understanding of Delta an Beta quadras and the construction of the phrase in relation to communication styles.
Finally I just want to add that my posts are not a personal attack to Cuiv or anything. I really found funny how was written that part of his post. I often find EIEs Ni morbidly hilarious. And he has the right and freedom to have the ideology he wants (as far as he doesnt hurt/impose it onto others). I mean I'm not one to judge or limit ppl freedom (at least not until they enter in contact with me in which case stuff change drastically since I value relational ethics too). So yeah. I think I'm more unpleasant to EIEs than they to me in general. Plus that's described by Strat EIE-SLI, so I find it true ime.
4 sx is focused on competitiveness. I have no problem seeing Elliot Rodger as 4 sxQuote:
Originally Posted by Arachne
Elliot Rodgers attitude was "everyone should want me. why does no one want me?" which is a 3s perspectiveQuote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Sx 4s is more about wanting to steal peoples boyfriends or something, because attraction to things they cant have. And also in past relationships ive been in my head competing with my actual partner and comparing myself to him constantly, being disappointed that im not as sexually experienced or dated as many people etc. It bothered me alot. Its an attachment to disappointment and what we dont have, basically, and thats intensified with the sexual instinct
Meanwhile Elliott, meaned that he had it all. So why doesnt anyone want him? Its a very 3 perspective, his worth lied in how many people wanted him, the breadth of his 'attraction net' and how stereotypically attractive he was. He couldnt stand the fact that he wasnt attractive enough for the general public.
4s dont care about how broad their attraction net is and how stereotypically attractive they are generally, its more about attracting certain people they are interested in. A difference between 4 and 3. 4s aim for trying to be a little different (and separate from everyone else) and that that will somehow make certain people latch on and get interested in their difference and how theyre an own independent, and then maybe that person will speak to the 4, because the 4 has problems around being quiet and withdrawn
He was quiet, withdrawn, and he didn't think he had it all. He had far more doubts than that and would sink in his emotions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachne
But you are right, I looked up his manifesto again and the first paragraph I read at random: "Episode 3 would complete the whole Star Wars saga. It was the most anticipated movie. To be able to see it before everyone else made me feel special. I really liked the character Anakin Skywalker, and I was amazed to see his epic transformation into Darth Vader on the high quality big screen. Finally having something to brag about, I told everyone at school the next day that I went to the premiere because my mother is friends with George Lucas. The problem was that most Eighth Graders thought of Star Wars as being a “nerdy” interest, and they didn’t really care. I was left frustrated and disappointed by their reaction."
This is pretty 3ish... Though where it's off for 3: 1) he was focused on feeling special (I'm not sure if this is the same for 3s) 2) he didn't realize in time that it was too nerdy. Weird for a 3 to be so not tuned into those stereotypes of what's liked.
I guess this is just another example of how just having 9 types in enneagram doesn't cover stuff about people all that well.
Another randomly picked paragraph... This is not only just 3ish but quite NPD (narcissistic personality disorder) as well:
"She kept on walking and didn’t even have the grace to respond to me. How dare she! That foul bitch. I felt so humiliated that I went to one of the school bathrooms, locked myself in a toilet stall, and cried for an hour."
Covert more than overt narc, I guess. And that's where it goes a bit 4ish again to me. But again, enneagram has limitations anyway.
Actually... I also don't fit a pure enneagram stereotype but have a strong influence from another enneatype. Pretty much a mix. Though instinct stacking subtype stuff happens to work decently well for me, well, tho' the same problem is still present adding subtypes, just much reduced. I wonder how common it is to have a mix of exactly 2 types. I additionally have an influence from a third type that came much later in my life, but it's a strong influence for certain situations and hard to shake it off sometimes, though I can do it (while I can't and won't for the core type stuff, that's too natural a fixation for me).
3s also enjoy feelings special, but its like an "im the best" - special. they love shining. 4s are convinced theyre special in a "im broken and im in the most pain in the world" wayQuote:
Originally Posted by Myst
theres some overlap here between 3w4 and 4w3 especially when a 4 is more confident (and I think thats more common with social 4s), example Morrissey. but hes still whiny and expect sadness "please please please let me get what i want, lord knows it would be the first time". all his songs are sad and whiny :P
that elliott "had something to brag about" is also 3 lol - he thinks his worth lies in other peoples opinions of him as attractive, cool, popular etc
3s like standing out as the most attractive, popular, succesful person and if theyre not getting that from anywhere they can become like him in very extreme cases
a 4 wouldnt be that upset about people not wanting him, its more of an expectation that 'normal' people wont want them, whereas elliott dont understand it because he expects people to want him
ive written about it before but i think social last-ness can fuck over a 3 to an extent, and yeah it makes them more withdrawn and less functioning socially which disrupts their basic need
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal
yeah totally, I think of Ne as viewing the world in terms of a limitless field of these little circles, like each person is just one walking circle which is like a cell that makes up a bigger circle and it spirals into the DNA structure of the universe itself, whereas Ti Ni is like viewing everything from the point of view of that one circle rather than all possible circles. they get really locked into their perspective. Hamlet likes to generate circles for people to adopt and sort of implies the existence of a multiplicity of circles but never quite consciously recognizes it (love other people, but not because we're all one organism--becomes a declarative morality where "one circle" is the correct one not part of a larger truth, but "loving other people" is derived precisely from this truth, otherwise why love people if we aren't in some way connected, etc), Hamlet is like right on that boundary of recognizing the broader perspective which I think is the source of a lot of their "to be or not to be" angst. I think this is the source of there being different versions of Christianity for example. that Ni Ti formulation is different than a Ne Fi version but they're fundamentally derived from the same reality, they are just different individual perspectives
OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachne
Elliot Rodgers also came off pretty sad and whinyQuote:
theres some overlap here between 3w4 and 4w3 especially when a 4 is more confident (and I think thats more common with social 4s), example Morrissey. but hes still whiny and expect sadness "please please please let me get what i want, lord knows it would be the first time". all his songs are sad and whiny :P
Agreed that bit was 3.Quote:
that elliott "had something to brag about" is also 3 lol - he thinks his worth lies in other peoples opinions of him as attractive, cool, popular etc
Interesting.Quote:
3s like standing out as the most attractive, popular, succesful person and if theyre not getting that from anywhere they can become like him in very extreme cases
a 4 wouldnt be that upset about people not wanting him, its more of an expectation that 'normal' people wont want them, whereas elliott dont understand it because he expects people to want him
ive written about it before but i think social last-ness can fuck over a 3 to an extent, and yeah it makes them more withdrawn and less functioning socially which disrupts their basic need
Plot twist: He was a 2 and went to 8. Angry when unappreciated and unwanted. 3 could still be incorporated as a wing, without a doubt he has the "ohh I'm the best" influence. But the basic entitlement that drove him might as well have lots of unhealthy 2's desire not to be rejected. The 8 disintegration would explain the vengeful nature of his rampage. The sad and whiny, well there's also the line to 4, he went back and forth. My two cents here, do what you want with that :shrug: Maybe it's best if we continue in his respective thread though.
I am speaking out of personal experience with two people who are sexually abusive and manipulative (a man and a woman), both of whom share the personality traits I mentioned in my last post. I am also observing a general trend within society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chae
Based on posts you've left elsewhere, you seem to think that nerdy, overweight gamers, Budweizer dudebros, and flamboyant, crude trolls who crack jokes about women online are somehow "creepy" and "threatening". However, most of these men are sexually inexperienced and will lack the charisma to seduce let alone coerce a woman who is not making clear advances towards them. So a man whose hobbies are anime, Bach, CoD and playing pranks on feminists is probably not going to rape you.
The sort of man you should be worried about is the opposite: a man who seems very smooth, suave, charming and socially connected. Think of a high powered, hard-working manager who seems to be put together, someone charismatic, respected in elite society, who makes all the right noises about politics. This might seem counter-intuitive, but the truth is that people who are in a position of high status are less likely to value you as an individual, and will often have a dark, disturbing side that they hide from the world. Look at Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Ben Affleck, etc. They are all men who have donated money to "women's rights" groups and are vocal supporters of a left-wing political agenda. Yet they are abusers. So be careful not to judge someone as good/bad based on the superficial image they present in public. You seem to place an inordinate emphasis upon someone's prestige within society when making ethical judgements.
I hope you will take this on board, especially as sexual harassment seems to be a significant fear of yours.
its true, I bet some lonely nerd would worship Chae, but you have to understand that people tend to aspire upward thus the risk of being underappreciated in virtue of a relative status inequality is all part of the game
to say high status guys are more likely to be predators is probably not true, they're probably more able to be predatory and get away with it, since society loves to enforce its laws on the poor but not the rich, but it doesn't speak to their underlying character (some would say the fact they rose to the top is an indicator of character and thus they're inoculated against some of these unhealthy urges--although not absolute, see Weinstein or whatnot). some lonely nerd as a product of systemic forces would probably worship Chae, and live in fear of being called a creep, because of how susceptible they are to punishment, but it doesn't make them any better as people, it only makes them more vulnerable and that's not typically what women are after, only mommies; thus this sort of argument takes on the tone of pity being the basis for romance which I think is not very romantic. in the end you have to risk for something to be felt as valuable, so the argument that Chae would be "better off" is not really true; in a quantitative sense her bets would be hedged, but that takes all the relative value out of the result since it was calculated to be a foregone conclusion without risk--that is the antithesis of romance
I dunno this is all very interesting but what I find interesting is how, although the way you talk, about your wanted or supposed desired activities with those of the opposite sex, yet really you are saying here you're not a threat, because you're a nerd/not socially adjusted etc. Yeah that's interesting but what's more interesting is that, despite your talk, is that, each time, you seem to put women on a pedestal. That's good but just make sure it's the right woman IMO. For instance, how do you know Chae isn't an abuser? She's made sexually inappropriate comments to me before. Anyway i'm not taking sides, but it just seems a victim mentality is ingrained in you and not just from a socionics perspective. Maybe you need to chill or something, or take up weights? I dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuivienen
It's like a strange way of being creepy to women yet being afraid of them. But, it's OK IMO, I think this sort of attitude will pass. I'd say you should focus on other activities, like, take up going to the gym or something. Meeting women will happen indirectly when you take the focus off the particular type of obsession you have IMO. Yeah that was the real point amongst multiple strange attitudes in your post, just chill out, take up some other hobbies that young men should be doing, and it will or should take your mind off being so sensitive and creepy.
Just trying to help.
I am 6'2, 190lb and learning Gracie jujitsu. I would bet a lot of money that I am in better shape than you right now. Oh and just this evening, I hit on five French women, and one Turkish woman, and got three numbers. I am guaranteed to meet at least two of those three girls tomorrow. That is a 50% success rate, and on a Tuesday evening! - the worst night for dating. Most men would envy half of what I can achieve without trying. No doubt, a bottom feeder such as yourself would give his left hand to be where I am in life, and yet, I am only beginning to rise and will rise inexorably.Quote:
Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac
You are just another little fly for me to swat, and I do enjoy doing it...again, and again, and again.
My love is to be obsessed, to be passionate and consume myself within the grandeur of a pure, raw yet serene desire. You couldn't even taste a drop of what I can make real, and even if you could, it would drive you mad. I don't care. You are just another easily triggered puritanical bore who hopes that politeness will get him laid. What a cuck!Quote:
Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac
Good luck to you.
Ah, so you are just a creepy weirdo then (who knows what you mean by hitting on so many Turkish women since you say you have to move to America to get a date.) All the best.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuivienen
You are the most pusillanimous, contrived virtue signaler on this forum, and my god, there is some stiff competition for that honor.Quote:
Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac
In the odd chance that you ever managed to achieve sexual arousal, I fear the experience would so traumatize you that you'd decide to undergo gender reassignment surgery. What a miserable creature you are.
EIEs have also good grasp of Ne, but its unvalued. Though, they use it by default too. In this sense I must distinct bright EIEs that show me ways that I've never considered myself or simply a very different perspective. In this sense I value their opinion a lot. Without them I wouldnt have a very important piece of reality that increases understanding, diversity of opinions and perspective. I find the intellect, advice,opinion, attitude of some EIEs as very enlighting, though, not in the most usual way. Just as somebody else said in here once, conflictors can shine like diamonds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
I was just thinking in the wisdom of lovely Guava.
yeah, like Nietzsche :love2:
Very true! I’ve found LIIs to be very helpful for me and have even found some attractive (both platonically or otherwise), even if things never quite work out between us. Of course there are also some that repulse me immediately. :shifty: But conflictors can be very attractive or helpful, yes. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crystal
Read MoreQuote:
Issue 1: Making ungrounded leaps of theory
This issue is actually not new, but it seems to be growing. I first observed this 10+ years ago: people – via articles, presentations, and even books – saying that the wings do this or the arrows do that, or that subtypes are like this. Although new theory is actually desirable, ungrounded theory is not, and neither is theory stated as an absolute rather than as a speculation.
An example: An Enneagram teacher saying he/she can absolutely tell the type of another person because she/he can readily determine the Center of Intelligence and subtype of another person and this gives the person’s ennea-type.
Think about this. How can we determine the person’s main Center of Intelligence before they themselves deeply consider this? It has, I think, long been debunked that just because a person’s ennea-type is formed from a particular Center that that is the primary Center they use. For example, many 9s are not so much in touch with their body center; many 9s relate more to the heart center and some to the head center. Many 3s do not relate to being heart-centered and some don’t appear this way either.
How can one determine another’s subtype when subtypes are so subtle and nuanced? Asking the other person before he or she understands the subtypes accurately is no help. Drawing conclusions based on a simplistic understanding of the ennea-types is also misleading. For example, some suggest that the self-preserving subtypes are always concerned about self-preserving issues such as safety and security, etc. At a high level, this is true enough, but this doesn’t mean self-preserving subtypes always have these needs addressed. For example, self-preservation 4s are called reckless-dauntless. One of the ways they respond to the self-preserving instinct is to pay little attention to some of their real or true self-preserving needs. For example, they may have an abundance of money and then spend it all recklessly, or they often work themselves to a frenzy (even being a look-alike for a 3 or a 7) as a way of showing how much they can do and not suffer or as a way to avoid their deeper feelings of melancholy and sadness. Similarly, social subtypes do not always feel comfortable in groups. I am a social 2, and I have a strong but mixed reaction to groups. I like them when they are productive and focused, but am highly aware that groups can be mean and actually harmful to people if left unattended (as in Lord of the Flies).
Issue 2: The obsession with typing other people
This issue seems to be getting worse, but perhaps that is because more people know the Enneagram and as a result, more people are “playing with their knowledge” and/or assuming they can accurately type others. I read this on Facebook, on LinkedIn; I hear this at conferences and during informal discussions. And it really disturbs me. Although the reasons for attempting to type others – often public figures – are understandable: it’s a way for us to apply what we think we know; it’s interesting to try to figure out the type’s of others; and I think some people may think that if we can’t type other people, then what use is the system?
The answer is that the Enneagram is really for our own use and for our own development psychologically and spiritually. We can also use it to improve our compassion for and interactions with others if we know their type accurately. But to assume we can determine another’s type with any certainty – an even more so with public figures whom we don’t know personally and for whom our only data is what we read about them (which may not be accurate) or how we experience them on television or some other media (which has our own bias to our assessment) – is disturbing and even arrogant. That is a strong word and I don’t use it lightly.
An example: I was at a dinner with some other Enneagrammers, including some well-known Enneagram teachers (unnamed!), and the name Ryan Seacrest came up. One of the Enneagram teachers said, “Oh, he’s absolutely a 3.” I was startled by this comment because of several factors: (1) the statement was made with such certainty, even though this teacher had never met Seacrest; (2) I’ve watched Seacrest on American Idol since its inception, watched his other TV shows, listened to him on the radio for years (he began as a radio personality), read a great about him in magazines, and seen him interviewed multiple times and he appears to me to much more of a 7, though I am not certain of this.
I remarked, “Oh, I think he’s a 7; what makes you think he’s a 3?”
I received this response: “He’s a 3 without a doubt.” When I asked about the data for this point of view, I was told, “Seacrest has replaced Dick Clark on some shows and Clark is definitely a 3. Plus, I’ve read biographies about him, and I know he’s a 3.”
What I was thinking was this: Even if Clark is a 3, this doesn’t make Seacrest a 3. And even if a biography describes a public figure in some way, the biographer has selective information and a point of view, so bias can easily creep in. However, what is said in response was this: “Could you give me some books or articles to read so I could understand better why you came to that conclusion?” What was said in response was this: “I’m right; you’re [Ginger] wrong. I can always tell a person’s type by reading their biographies.”
Let’s just call this a very awkward moment, to which I said, “I’ve never thought of you as arrogant and I do think it is arrogant to presume we can know the type of another person, and especially public figures, with 100% certainty.”
The response from this teacher: “You’re wrong.”
I do want to add that I do engage and, to some extent, enjoy speculating on the types of public figures, but I always hold that it is speculative. Whether others either agree or disagree with my ideas, I am most interested in their reasons and sources of data. I often learn something I didn’t fully consider. For example, with Obama, while I do think (emphasis on “think,” rather than “know”), he’s a 9 with a 1 wing (and have good reasons for this), I also think a very good case can be made for him as a 3 or a 5. I thought through this, think 9 is a better fit (social subtype 9) and think there are strong reasons to eliminate 5 and 3. Yet, I still think these could be possible. So, I can have a healthy conversation with someone who disagrees with me, as long as their reasoning is sound and they don’t take the position: “I’m right; you’re wrong.”
Issue 3: Purported “Enneagram teachers” who don’t know the Enneagram accurately who are disseminating it to others
This issue has arisen in so many places around the world (including the US), and of course has to do with the increasingly widespread use of the Enneagram. Fifteen years ago, most people who worked with the Enneagram (specifically, the Enneagram of personality with its roots from Ichazo to Naranjo and then to others) had certified with Riso-Hudson, Palmer-Daniels, Hurley-Donson (their roots were a combination of Guerjieff and Naranjo, to some degree), Jerry Wagner, or Claudio Naranjo. Most had trained with only one of these “schools,” with some having learned it (and in many cases, learned it well) on their own through reading, reflection, and some shorter training with a number of different Enneagram teachers who knew the Enneagram well. During this period, there was limited infusion of Guerjieff and Ichazo, Guerjieff because his “followers” did not (and many still do not) think those of us from the Naranjo roots are using the system correctly. Ichazo-learners of the Enneagram stayed more to themselves, did not singly focus on the Enneagram, and Ichazo began working with what we now know as Tritypes – that is, the idea that we have a type within each center of Intelligence – and did not encourage people he trained to go into the public zone with their knowledge.
Over the last decade, this has changed, which is both very useful for the Enneagram and also generate the concerns related to issue 3. More and more people have heard of and know the Enneagram, which is wonderful. At the same time, how are they learning it, from whom are they learning it, and are they learning it accurately? Learning it accurately obviously has to do with the “teacher” or mode or learning, but also with the learner. What I am experiencing both inside and outside the US is some incorrect learning, which I think is 65% the teaching and 35% how the learner is processing what they taught. There are so many ways in which this arises, so let me discuss two examples, though there are many, many more.
Example 1: Inadequately trained Enneagram teachers
When I was in Hong Kong three years ago doing a Train-the-Trainer program on my first book, Bringing Out the Best in Yourself at Work, a woman from mainland China whom I didn’t know contacted me prior to my going there asking to have dinner with me the night before the program began. I said yes, we had dinner, and she told me two things: (1) she was a 7 (however, she was most clearly a counterphobic 6, which became very clear as the T-the-T progressed, although everyone saw this except her), and (2) she was planning to write an Enneagram book and wanted my help with this. When I asked her how she had learned the Enneagram, she replied that she had read one book (author I didn’t know) and when I asked her how she planned to write a book when she didn’t have a deep or strong knowledge of the Enneagram (I said it more nicely than this), she replied that it didn’t matter because she was simply going to cut and paste from the work of other Enneagram authors, including me!
Example 2: Mislearning the 27 Enneagram Subtypes
Almost everywhere I go, there is a fascination (and rightly so!) with the 27 Enneagram Subtypes. And, everywhere I go, there are always people who think they know the Subtypes accurately but have it mostly or entirely wrong. For example (and this is a common misperception), I’ve heard more than a few times that people are being taught that (1) the “dominant” subtype is where we are getting our needs met and (2) the “dormant” subtype is the area in which needs are not being met at all.
Here’s the problem with this teaching. The subtypes are “neurotic” ways of getting our needs met. In other words, our subtype is the intersection of the passion of our type and our primary instinctual need (self-preservation, social or sexual, also called one-to-one), and our subtype behavior is continuous, repetitive, and largely unconscious. The “dominant” subtype behavior is by definition, neurotic, since if the need were being met, we would not continue it so habitually or so frequently. The example of hunger is useful here. A non-neurotic relationship to food is that a person feels hunger, eats, and then is satisfied or full. The person no longer needs to eat until his or her physical need for hunger rises again (which is not right after eating, since the person is satisfied). A neurotic relationship to food is when a person repeatedly over-eats or under-eats, being out of touch with the body’s need for food. In these cases, food often represents something other than nutrition for the person and thus, it is a neurotic need until the individual examines his or her relationship to food.
Similarly, our “dormant” subtype, the one that is least activated (self-preservation, social, or sexual) does not mean we are getting none of our needs met in this area. Obviously, if one’s self-preserving instinct is the “dormant” subtype, it doesn’t mean that the person is penniless, does not have shelter, doesn’t eat well, or doesn’t pay bills and taxes!
I’ve even heard people say that a “teacher” has told them that they should develop the subtype that is “dormant,” using the subtype for the ennea-type. Ouch! This is just one more way of not getting our true needs met, which is really one of the main points of knowing our main subtype(s): what real needs do we have in each of the three instinctual arenas (self-preservation, social, and one-to-one) and how can we get these true needs met?
More on Subtypes
Here’s the Claudio Naranjo theory that I learned in Germany 1+ years ago: Most of us have 2 “awake” subtypes and a third that is “asleep.” With the 2 awake subtypes one may be dominant (most common) or both may be equal (can happen) or they may alternate at different points in our life (happens to quite a few people). Claudio says we should think like this: there are really 6 versions of subtypes for each type: SP-Social; SP- 1-1; Social-SP; Social-1-1; 1-1;SP; and 1-1-Social. So there are really more than 9 characters or even 27 characters; there are 6 X9 or 54!
Revision:
Cuivienen: 3w4 sx/sp
New Additions:
HotelAmbush: 1w9 so/sp
Niffer: 6w5 sp/sx
Bertrand: 9w1 sp/sx
Nanashi: 1w2 so/sp
The Updated List
@Chryssie - mb E-9 [ they are everywhere 8| ]
"I just want to feel what you feel sometimes"
"I have zero ambition beyond .... what do I even want out of life, huh, I don't know. I waste all my energy on whatever people need of me, if its money then sure ill work, if its fun then sure lets fucking kill ourselves having fun. If I have no one to work for or no one to please then I just sleep because there's nothing else." link
No ones reading those walls of texts ms te polrQuote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
*Because I kind of like you I will try to do a tl;dr version for you next time, mr ti polr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Systematic approach reduces the info to general features. It's Te style to overload by info. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Seems we both tend to use our polr more than average.
Being literate is not Te sol. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Systematic approach (your valued) is when you move from easy and short to harder and detailed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
To be literate means also understanding (Ti), besides raw knowledge (Te). Larger texts have lesser chance to be read and then understood what was important in them. While shorter and easier ones have higher chance to be read and understood, and then mb a person will read more about the theme.
The optimum would be to say the short essence and near to give links to more thorough material. This needs more of your own work - to process the initial data (Te), to find the most important (Ti) and say it clearly.
I tend to write large texts only when I "just talk". If I'd need to explain or to educate - I'd prefer the systematic approach.
what
I guess my question is do you really think taking the following into account
weak intuition (poor discernment in shades of meaning)
language barrier (relative to native speakers, limited vocabulary and experience)
idiosyncratic typology (arbitrary distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy)
that you're going to effectively give advice on how best to communicate vis-a-vis values and so forth? maybe someone can translate but I feel like your above post is totally confusing as to what its actually trying to convey. in other words, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. and the thing thats annoying about it is, for something being so generally worthless, there's still this condescending air to it out of all proportion with its true value. its like jesus dude, before you lecture people can you at least try to make sure its not a piece of poop. I feel like if you actually understood the functions as well as you purport yourself to maybe that would come across, but it doesn't. at least not to me
I know you think because you don't value Fe it doesn't matter, but there's a Te threshold where its like, if what you're saying is totally nonsensical, because of low Fe or not, you need to work it into a better product (Te) for anyone to care (Fi), lest you just be wasting everyone's time (Ni), and people will resist (Se) such an offense to the outer situation (Ne), because by any metric, its just stupid
I feel like at best by your zany system you should stick to commenting on appearance and how you associate how people look and carry themselves with certain values or expressed functions (or anecdotes about real life interactions), since that's actually kind of interesting, vs the strange dogmatic interpretations of theory are superfluous in that they're like solipsistic cream filling to functional labels, completely detached from a common meaning (ironically you assert your own private meanings as absolute in the name of orthodoxy, but its a sham because you wouldn't even need to if such a thing were true, an orthodoxy with a following of one is just a conspiracy theory). its enough to know you slap "Xe or Xi" on the impressions, not what you mean when you say Xe or Xi, since its totally incomprehensible anyway. attempts to educate on that front are not well taken
Thing is, I don't care who reads them. :) I know someone will and will get something from it. I am more likely to read something quoted here than follow random links. I don't need a hundred browser windows open.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
I am not going to summarize that whole quote in my own words since it would be reinventing the wheel. I say things in my own words all the time anyway and it seems if I say it it carries less weight around here than if someone who appears to have more authority on a subject says it. If someone doesn't want to read it they don't have to. I am not going to adjust what I post to please one person and I don't think he expected me to. FTR, I don't read most of what is posted on this forum anymore because there isn't much clarity to be found.
I do understand English is not your (or others) first language so I get why it may be a pain in the ass but skipping it is always an option. That is how I feel about reading most google translated Russian articles and tests. :)
So you understand that big texts are generally not read. People here are for fun, while to read a lot is hard. They prefer to read only what is very important. Instead of large text it would be more useful to post shorter essence with Ti and sometimes give sources for more. This was my idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
> I do understand English is not your (or others) first language so I get why it may be a pain in the ass but skipping it is always an option.
I mostly read your own texts (not citations) in case they are for theme interesting for me. But I also see sometimes the important could be said shorter.
I saw at Jung similar style. He like starts to think about something and then writes what gets to his head and then leaves as is. As the result - larger text with a lot of additional info. In his "Psychological Types" can be left only "10 chapter" (and there was such publishing), while 90% of the rest text looks as additional. Mb it's something with your base Ni like at him, but partly may be related to superego Te (which may overload by data "just in case"). If you'd try to express the ideas shorter with Ti this may be pleasant as it's your valued way.
> That is how I feel about reading most google translated Russian articles and tests.
Those have also special auto-translator charm. :) To read something serious with that stuff is not good idea - any place may be translated wrongly, besides general quality of the text. Auto-translation is a supplement tool or for short, not important, not specialized texts like entertainment pages.
lol too bad carl jung didn't have you around to edit out 90% of the work that you devoted your life to
This had a lot of good points in it. I especially agree with this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
I think one way to type others, or rather to help them type themselves is through the advice given to each type specifically, what advice rings true and is most helpful, what are your real issues? Some people find this easier to determine than others, and even being able to look at oneself objectively and with a critical eye can speak to type. I think perhaps both 1s and 4s are more likely to identify with the negative aspects of their given types and see the problems with themselves, whereas probably 8s and maybe also 3s and 7s are less likely to do this. It's not to put a label on yourself or anyone else, but to understand aspects of yourself and grow through that understanding.Quote:
The answer is that the Enneagram is really for our own use and for our own development psychologically and spiritually. We can also use it to improve our compassion for and interactions with others if we know their type accurately. But to assume we can determine another’s type with any certainty – an even more so with public figures whom we don’t know personally and for whom our only data is what we read about them (which may not be accurate) or how we experience them on television or some other media (which has our own bias to our assessment) – is disturbing and even arrogant.
I also thought this was good, and important to rememberQuote:
The subtypes are “neurotic” ways of getting our needs met. In other words, our subtype is the intersection of the passion of our type and our primary instinctual need (self-preservation, social or sexual, also called one-to-one), and our subtype behavior is continuous, repetitive, and largely unconscious. The “dominant” subtype behavior is by definition, neurotic, since if the need were being met, we would not continue it so habitually or so frequently. The example of hunger is useful here. A non-neurotic relationship to food is that a person feels hunger, eats, and then is satisfied or full. The person no longer needs to eat until his or her physical need for hunger rises again (which is not right after eating, since the person is satisfied). A neurotic relationship to food is when a person repeatedly over-eats or under-eats, being out of touch with the body’s need for food. In these cases, food often represents something other than nutrition for the person and thus, it is a neurotic need until the individual examines his or her relationship to food.
It's just funny you'd post this, since you do the bolded all the time (Ti). :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
This is your Ti devaluing approach to Sol's post? lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
I understand that larger and more complex text may to have more of useful info, but worse understood or ignored. Also to write larger texts needs more efforts. It's practical usefulness question and of my resources. To have leading function also means good understanding where such info and efforts are appropriate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
The difference of contexts is what types with Ne polr get not good, and hence tend to see too surfacely.
To have nonvalued does not mean to ignore this. Especially when it's strong function. The preference is not absolute, all 8 functions are equally important. My common talking is lesser Ti-like than what you see on forums. Here it's shifted to SMS style - short and Ti-compressed essence of info.
My enneagram journey has taken a new direction. Many years ago I started with the core type and focused on understanding mine. Later I looked into trifix theory which lead me to tritype which, imo, is more about marketing another's (Ichazo) ideas in a watered down form of enneagram that is more appealing to the masses. It is like a quick fix for those looking for a label more than understanding. I have a copy of their book. Not saying the Fauvre's are doing anything wrong by watering things down since it is just another tool to narrow down options from 9 to 3 within the system. There is so much variation within each core type that I no longer feel it neccessary for me to explore. If you see me giving a trytype from now on it is safe to assume I am considering 3 types for the person. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by squark
I guess what I am saying is I have come full circle. There is nothing in the "tritype" of 458/9 that cannot be explained by core type, wing, integration/disintegration and instinct stacking. Both "The Scholar" and "The Contemplative" descriptions can work since they are short and kind of generic. I am not a "core" 5, 8 or 9. 8 is certainly more fitting than 9 over a lifetime. I checked out type 6 since a lot of people who think they have an 8 fix are 6s but none of 6 fits me at my core or even surface.Quote:
Later, in 1996, Katherine Fauvre met a teacher from Arica that referenced Oscar Ichazo's teachings in a workshop. What was of interest, is that the teacher mentioned that Ichazo had added the concept of "tri-fix" a similar theory to Tritype,[3][4]. Because Ichazo added "tri-fix" circa 1996, it was not a part of the original dissemination of the Enneagram in 1969, nor was not a part of Dr. Claudio Naranjo's Enneagram teachings in his Seekers After Truth groups (SAT) from 1971-1973. Ichazo's "tri-fix" suggested that people use 3 Enneagram fixations, one from each center. This is what Katherine's typing interviews had revealed as well. As such, it confirmed that the patterns Katherine's research findings suggested were significant as they had also been discovered by Ichazo, the originatior of the Enneagram of Personality.
At that point in time, nothing was published on Oscar Ichazo's "tri-fix" work. Finally, in December 1996 and January 1997, Enneagram Monthly published interviews with Oscar Ichazo that included a paragraph on the concept of tri-fix[5]. This further validated Fauvre's findings that individuals have not just one, but 3 Enneagram Type. The difference was that Fauvre found that rather than only the "fixations" of the three types, people utilized the full defense strategy of their three types including: the mental fixations, the emotional passions and the viseral sensations of each type. The nuances of type produced by this study inspired Katherine to continue her studies to learn more about the internal experience of EnneagramTypes and the deeper meaning of the intersection of the three Enneagram Types.
In 2008, Katherine Fauvre coined the term "Tritype" in order to distinguish her vast body of research and resulting theory from Ichazo’s teachings, and the teachings of Arica. All published material to date is from Katherine's work as Ichazo never published more than the initial paragraph about Tritype in the Enneagam Monthly[5].
http://www.katherinefauvre.com/tritype/
What I see now is that 4w5 sx/sp covers all the tritype stuff. I have spent weeks reading the books of all the enneagram teachers I feel are important to understanding the whole system. There is still much more to read. It can be overwhelming as I need time to process in between.
There isn't a lot to any of the descriptions on official "tritype". It just dilutes everything, imo, and is useful mostly to gain clarity on one's enneagram type when undecided between types. I was not undecided since I had already put a lot of work into this before. I was mostly interested in seeing how the idea of tritype was actually any different for me. When my sisters visited I got to explore this further. My EII sister is a 9w1 sp/sx but she got 946 or 964 (don't have it handy) on her tritype quiz. Although the description is rather fitting it just didn't matter since I was able to see how the core, wing, integration/disintegration and instincts explained her more fully than a tritype.
I am not saying tritype is worthless. Like I said, it can be used to narrow down when undecided between types. I feel I have a deeper understanding having investigated it and seeing how it all fit. I suppose some of you had already figured this out but had no desire to interfere with another's exploration of the self. I don't want to interfere either as I find enneagram a valuable tool when used as intended. Now for the synch in this, I remember you saying something similar to what I have concluded? It triggered something (an insight) in me awhile back. Regardless if you actually posted something, or I am imagining it now, it seems fitting I reveal all this in response to you.
As a side effect - more chance to mislead by wrong "leading" type as it becomes lesser clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
For example, Aster behaves as 9 (which should be common for base Fi), but has 4 as 1st and 9 on 2nd place.
Socionics also has dudes which try to assign to one human several types: mask, DarkAngelFireWolf69's levels, secondary type as subtype, etc heresy. So when they see a behavior common for other type - instead of correcting the probability for the type, they easily rationalize the possible mistake.
> There is nothing in the "tritype" of 458/9 that cannot be explained by core type, wing, integration/disintegration and instinct stacking.
I have doubts about those wings and stackings. Mb after some reading and applying on practice I'll change the opinion.
Jung's types have kind of wings as the idea of 2 subtypes with shift to base or creative function. The sense for such subtypes looks as doubtful from theory and practical usage. While stackings reminds how random typology like DarkAngelFireWolf69's "subtypes" is added to Jung's types.
@Aylen
I wish I could give that 10 likes :content:
I think @Chae is 8w7
This is the most fundamental aspect of Enneagram 8 (9types.com):Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Unhealthy loop controlled by Basic Fear:Fear of submitting to others -> controlling -> independent -> Fear of submitting to othersIn a so/sx individual (and Chae is absolutely so/sx, I can tell she's preoccupied by so > sx > sp based on the content of her posts, which I'll get to later), the fear of submission, which defines all core 8s often leads to the following:
Social Eights: "Friend or Foe?"
- I can't let my guard down until I know where I stand and that I'm respected.
- I test my friends for their loyalty. Once trust is firmly established, I usually stay in friendships for life.
- When in a group, I focus on who else has power in order to maintain my authority.
- I will go to bat for my friends and the weaker members of the community, but I want them to try to develop self-reliance and get back on their feet again.
- I try to be loyal and work problems out, but if someone walks over the line and betrays my trust, I may cut him or her out of my life forever.
- I love the excitement of a righteous struggle for truth or fairness.
- I usually take the role of protector in a group and make sure that justice is upheld.
I agree with an 8 fix for Chae but not core, because she is more preoccupied with appearing competent and stylish than powerful. She posts long monologues in which she'll describe her daily life. The need to constantly let other people know that you're doing something, and with a great deal of emotional embellishment, is typical of So-firsts and especially So 3s. They must self promote to remind others who they are and stay relevant in the social pecking order, as this soothes their core fear. I notice she has extensive knowledge of celebrity culture and values the aesthetics (and idea) of glamour, fame and fortune, which also reinforce the theme of status seeking. 8s by contrast romanticise a rugged, tough life, and their desire to protect means they're less bothered by awkwardness, sadness, despair etc in others than 3s tend to be. I can sympathise with her choices, though, as they stem from a 3s need to be recognized and not shamed, both of which I relate to (although I only want to be an irresistible sex god. I don't care about the opinion of someone who I don't wanna fuck :P).
Another thing: I notice a number of 8 descriptions mention a desire for "justice", but bear in mind that 8s have an...uh...kind of blunt vigilante style justice ("he screwed me over, now I'm gonna make him bleed like a bitch", I think most crazy exes are 8s lol) and it isn't based on ethical codes like say a 1 ("these people disgust me and need to be made an example of") or cp6 snowflake issues ("I'm scared and offended! Fuck you you rapist!").
I still type her as 3w4 (387) and so/sx.
Eh, you are using the theory in an unfalsifiable way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Actually, LSE sees more "surfacely" than LSI because of extraversion.Quote:
The difference of contexts is what types with Ne polr get not good, and hence tend to see too surfacely.
Ni is deeper than Ne, with seeing the deep essence. Ti is also deeper compared to Te.
I find you do have the Ne PoLR in terms of not paying attention to those different Ne contexts. You easily exclude the Ne possibilities, as well.
There are definitely people who have a shift to the Creative function so this subtype system has validity. Example, think of an IEI that's very contemplative, engages with their perceptions most of the time, that's the IEI-Ni, and then think of another IEI that for an introvert is quite sociable and emotional and uses emotional influence a lot with people, that's the IEI-Fe. I've seen both kind. Same kind of logic is true for the other types too as far as I've investigated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
You underestimate the context factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
> LSE sees more "surfacely" than LSI because of extraversion.
"Surface" as was used means simplified and hence lesser correct, what relates to weak region and tendency to close eyes on nonvalued one.
> Ni is deeper than Ne
they differ only on what it's directed
> I find you do have the Ne PoLR in terms of not paying attention
ok. I'm attracted to EII and ESI, while EIE and ESE annoy me cause I'm LSI
also I prefer and popularize Ne typing method because I like it, cause it's my polr
etc.
I got your "falsifiable" view.
> There are definitely people who have a shift to the Creative function so this subtype system has validity.
There are people with more or lesser accentuated type.
I opt 9 into my tritype so I get an excuse for laziness.
Extraversion is less analytical than introversion...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol
Yeah, Ni is directed to deeper stuff rather than surface stuff.Quote:
> Ni is deeper than Ne
they differ only on what it's directed
I don't see how VI is Ne.Quote:
>I find you do have the Ne PoLR in terms of not paying attention
ok. I'm attracted to EII and ESI, while EIE and ESE annoy me cause I'm LSI
also I prefer and popularize Ne typing method because I like it, cause it's my polr
etc.
I got your "falsifiable" view.
As for who you are attracted to... I noticed you typed Maritsa and Chae EIE... they aren't EIE or even Fe valuers lol
In your system maybe, but clearly we have very different notions about what Fi vs Fe are, then.
The idea here however is that Creative is accentuated, not simply the type itself.Quote:
> There are definitely people who have a shift to the Creative function so this subtype system has validity.
There are people with more or lesser accentuated type.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
Subteigh: 954?
Niffer 846>864, can’t tell if sx/sp or sx/so
T_T
Enneagram is ridiculous. Someone needs to explain to me how 8 and 4 can even coexist in the same type (I know how it's supposed to work but in reality not in theory).
They're so opposite that to have them both prominent in one's personality would seem almost schizo, tho I guess similar ideas work in socionics with the ego and superid.
I guess it'd be like a flavoring. I still can't see enneagram as a legit reliable psychological trope thing.
Actually not a bad call though @manjac
Yeah it’s odd. But if you think about it all of the types have aspects that contradict eachother in one way or another. I’ll try to come up with a better answer when I’m not hungover.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffer
There are things about 8 and 4 that don’t contradict eachother like feeling like an outsider (4). Also both are reactive truth teller sort of types (well, when they’re together in a tritype) They both are individualists and independent and when they’re together in a tritype one becomes really independent and a separate entity
and yesit’d be like a flavoring. A fix isn’t as strong as a core type. I think the fixes makes the core types problem manifest in a particular way. Maybe for a 8 with a 4 fix it’d feel harder than another 8 to maintain the “nothing can affect me” attitude (and sx first. Sx is similar to 4 in the volatility) but they’d still feel a strong need to have it
Nonverbal typing uses visual information and hence relates to VI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst
Using of nonverbal for typing is made by intuitive impressions about an object's traits in the current moment what relates to Ne. IR effects also to Fi.
Such this magic works.
While physiognomy (which relates to S-T) is baseless heresy. I do not use it and others should not in VI.
Seeing stuff in front of you is tied to sensing usage. Sensing also includes hearing. Therefore typing is sensing first. Q.E.D.
You get those impressions by SEEING their face, so its SeQuote:
Originally Posted by Sol
For typing are used intuitive impressions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
S is used to perceive data, but not for typing, as I do not _consciously_ operate by forms and proportions.
To describe it easier, may be thought that N is _also_ used. But it's lesser correctly.
The impressions are sensorial. If not then stop asking for videos since ur "intuitive" impressions dont need videos
Impressions here is about imagination - about psyche traits which are not physical, what relates to N. You do not understand the core theory.Quote:
Originally Posted by Number 9 large
Not physical but visible - sensorial :cool:
type is an abstraction
intuition is abstract perception
drawning inference as to type from perception is intuition since you can't point to it. but its assuming rationality has no say in the process--you can't just reproduce whatever your experience of that person was for a third party without recourse to some form of rationality. this is what Sol's video collection amounts to, he's constructing a database of like types into groups that gave him the impressions he associates with xxxx type, etc. the problem is rationality structures the semantic framework so what xxxx means is individual until there's a consensus bound framework to operate within. in other words, its entirely possible and probable, that when person a reads types description x and person b reads it they associate it with two different stable categories of people. socionics tries to get around this with describing patterns not just at the individual but group level, so the likelihood of having it all hang together in the wrong way is less. however people usually just try to ignore conflicting information than integrate it. a socionic system that can explain how and where this occurs and why will be complete--it is the essence of socionics which is information mismatches leading to communication problems. the problem of type itself is a further communication difficulty subject to type, Jung knew this which is why he preferred to think of psychological functions as only needing to be in principle acknowledged, not that developing a full blown typology itself would be useful, because it would get subverted by type. when he talks about Freud and Adler he mentions exactly this--one was an extrovert and one an introvert. they had these entire systems that worked perfectly well for them and people like them, but were totally unconvincing to outsiders. they were as much psychological theories devised to get at reality as typology, just in different words. you could say inasmuch as they're all forms of human reverse engineering aimed at therapy (fixing people), its all the same thing. the problem is there is a bunch of socionics that got off to the races without understanding this principle up front. its the essential jungian principle. inasmuch as its true type and typology itself is a subjective illusion that degrades into the same conflicts as anything else until one can integrate enough knowledge to rise above that dynamic, which is extremely difficult. if this difficulty weren't lurking at the bottom of everything there would be no conflict, but things people can diverge over is also the source of all value. hence what you see reflected in people's schemes is not so much the objective system but their own values shining forth. its their preferred organizing principles being asserted as the world itself, because it is their world, and they will fight to defend it
Nope. 2w3.Quote:
Originally Posted by manjac
4 and 8's are similar in many aspects. Both are hostile sometimes, and tend to feel strong emotions (reactive types). The main difference is that 4's tend to be more vulnerable than 8's (but there are many other differences). 4's with an 8 fix can seem 8's, especially when Sx primary. This would be a four that packs a punch; more than the usual 4's (but still a 4) Think of crazedrat. In the case of an 8 with a 4 fix, you have the combination of a domineering individual, with that of an individualist. So this 8 will be a sort of a loner warrior type, with a tendency to get into tragic situations. Whichever type comes first in the trifix, will be the main appearance (the superior layer sort of) of the person, the second will be also pretty apparent, but more intermittently. The last fix is the deepest layer. The deeper the layer, the more it's "stripped" from the default presentation of the type. So when a 4-x-8 is being 8 for example, the 8-ness will be a rawer less controlled version than that from a 8-x-4 (which would be the opposite, this one would display a rawer form of 4-ness).Quote:
Originally Posted by niffer
Explain pls @lavos
More?Quote:
Originally Posted by niffer
Re: 2w3 (rather than 4 in heart)Quote:
Originally Posted by lavos
Intuitive impression.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffer
=__= @lavos
Tritypes enable everyone to feel like a special snowflake through extensive categorisation of traits (which is in and of itself ironic), but have little basis in psychology.Quote:
Originally Posted by niffer
The core of Enneagram theory, however (a person's core fears, virtues, + and - feedback loops and instinctual stackings that determine how they manifest) has some merit. Claudio Naranjo in particular made an effort to harmonise the Enneagram with diagnostic criteria like the DSM-III. I consider Enneagram to be a useful tool for self improvement, provided that you actually understand the theory and don't rely on someone's descriptions of each type, which are highly subjective.
It is difficult to Enneatype people online because of what it delves into. If you have doubts, I'd go back to the basics which I mentioned. Take notice of patterns in your own behaviour. The Enneagram can help explain why they manifest and hence provide a path to improve your psychological health.
@Cuivienen Completely agree. I've been into enneagram (the core theory) since I was 11 years old or so (I'm now 24). It was my gateway typology interest. I used it for self improvement at that age .. as a result since then I'd already been trying to iron out my problems associated with E8 and so it probably shows up a lot less than average now. I'd probably be a unique case in the realm of the enneagram. So yeah, I'm certain of my core type, anyway.
Enneagram is just desperate attempt to describe multidimensional information in one shaky progression where you should able to eliminate less prominent traits.
It is like personality disorders. They finally came into conclusion: if there is a need for it let's just score each trait separately. Is there always a single core? Why there should be? It would be just useless dogmatism to claim so as it is hard to measure and therefore show as truth true to subjective nature of it. Furthermore it is also about falling into trap thinking that people are just like me where one instance launches them.
Yeah I don’t see 2 in niffer
@manjac The thing is so far I see my movement to 2 and 5 as much more relevant than the tritype flavourings you posted. When I read up on 864 and 846 they definitely looked like they could be a good match. But before when I read up on 825 it seemed to match up as well or more, and I also remember I related to the 'triple rejection' concept a lot. Anyway I'll look into it more.
totally agree. I think if there's use in it its not to diagnose others, but to in principle see the "flaws" as cognizable phenomenon and root them out in yourself. not because you're a "type x" but because the stuff they said applies to you on a sliding scale and you know its true in that capacity to that extent, and you want to get betterQuote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
i think there's some kind of accepting/producing thing going on here where people are inclined to utilize enneagram differently
although I will say if its a framework to improve understanding of others it can be a step up if the baseline understanding is less than what the system produces, thus adoption of the system as a way to parse other people's experience could be really useful.. like "reductive" from one point of view is an improvement from another. so in some sense it has to do with whether its used not as "diagnosis" as in terms of "this is really the case with this person" and framework that allows for people to be better understood, because its a rational framework one can adopt and place them within which the overall effect is bringing one closer to seeing the others point of view. in other words inasmuch as it doesn't subsume their point of view into the system entirely, essentially making them a determinism,but rather functions to modify one's own point of view, and moves it closer to mutual understanding and growth then it has a legit and laudible use. in other words, you can use them to see the flaws in others and not just yourself as the basis for empathy and understanding, as long as you understand the "flaws" are not real but just coordinates on a system designed to bring people in greater harmony with themselves and others
All these systems are desperate attempts at understanding. Socionics targets people who have struggled with relationship problems which hasn't been a huge issue for me in the grand scheme of things. It is also not immune to dogmatism. They are all tools that can be used for deepening and widening awareness of self and others. Most criticisms of any of these systems will fundamentally apply to all the systems and their limitations. It all comes down to how people interpret and use the information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
Do you see what I see above?Quote:
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ENNEAGRAM AND THE CHAKRAS – Marcelo Aguirre
Posted on September 5, 2015 by Curt Micka • 4 Comments
http://www.ninepointsmagazine.org/wp...as-300x187.jpg
Both the Enneagram and the Chakras are “maps” for consciousness evolution. In other words, they are broad schemes of the integral human development process. However, there are some essential differences between them, namely:
- While the Enneagram distinguishes and describes in detail psychological features for each of nine personality “types” (ennea-types), the Chakras system is a unified system for human development, regardless of any personality style or “type”.
- Furthermore, their respective starting-points are not the same. The Enneagram focuses principally on a psychological level, related to the “types” or personality styles; and second, it offers a spiritual or transpersonal perspective regarding the Essential qualities, the Virtues and Transcendent Ideas. But the Chakras system focuses mainly on the vital energy in the human body; and second, it reveals psychological awareness in describing the chakras.
In the Chakras system, every human being is capable of fully developing their potential and achieving a wise life through the process of allowing the chakras to be gradually opened. This process involves overcoming certain existential “challenges” and therein gaining an increased level of maturity, detachment, generosity and open-mindedness. The existential challenges represent specific psychological obstacles that block each chakra, as follows:
- 1st Chakra – blocked by fear.
- 2nd Chakra – blocked by guilt.
- 3rd Chakra – blocked by shame.
- 4th Chakra – blocked by sadness.
- 5th Chakra – blocked by deception.
- 6th Chakra – blocked by illusion.
- 7th Chakra – blocked by attachment.
According to Eastern spiritual tradition, the practice of regular meditation focusing on each obstacle is the best way to unblock the energy of the chakras, in order to progressively eliminate the harmful influence that these obstacles have on the mind.
The first three chakras operate on the “personal” level. The personal level involves an inner work focused on discovering and accepting oneself.
The last three chakras belong to the “transpersonal” level. The transpersonal level involves abandoning oneself, or more precisely, detaching oneself from the self-image –the ego– and the illusion that one is actually “separated” from the all other beings. In doing so, one achieves a rising awareness of the unity and interconnectedness existing among all beings. The transpersonal level aims at a mystical kind of awareness, which only will be true if one has first worked deeply on the personal and transitional level.
The forth chakra, the heart chakra, is the “bridge” between the personal and transpersonal levels. It corresponds to the “transitional” level. Represented by the heart chakra, the transitional level “bridges” the other two evolutionary levels. The transitional level involves, on the one hand, overcoming obstacles on the personal level (fear, guilt, shame), and a deep understanding and loving acceptance of oneself. On the other hand, it implies a willingness or sincere intention to minimize the importance of self-image, the “ego”, in order to progressively experience love for all beings and an intuitive wisdom that are qualities of the transpersonal level.
The evolutionary map presented by the Enneagram is surprisingly linked to the seven chakras. Beyond our own personality type and instinctual subtype, the Enneagram invites everyone to know oneself and fully develop their own potential through the seven levels of the inner work that correspond to the seven chakras with each chakra pointing to specific vital aspects:
- Self-Preservation Instinct / 1st Chakra: Physical health, personal care, money management.
- Sexual Instinct / 2nd Chakra: Relationships, significant people, creativity.
- Social Instinct / 3rd Chakra: Self-esteem, social image and personal achievements.
- Passions / 4th Chakra: Deep motivations.
- Virtues / 5th Chakra: Authentic self-expression.
- Cognitive-Fixations / 6th Chakra: Delusions and illusions.
- Transcendent Ideas / 7th Chakra: Attachment.
The Enneatype identification is only the first step. But mere knowledge (or identification) of a typological “tag” is insufficient. After identifying one’s type and instinctual subtype, we have at the same time a double challenge — to continue knowing our self and, above all, to develop those aspects of the personality that are less developed.
Personal Level
This is the evolutionary level specially that can guide us toward greater self-knowledge. So, despite our dominant instinctual subtype, we should ask ourselves questions such as:
1st Chakra / Self-preservation Instinct:
How am I addressing my self-care, e.g. my physical health, body care, eating, sleeping, and hygiene? How am I managing my money? What do I need to change on these areas?
2nd Chakra / Sexual Instinct:
What about my significant relationships? Am I caring for them properly? Where and how am I not paying adequate attention to my emotional relationships? How am I interacting with my partner and closest friends? On which activities do I expend my biggest energy and creativity? What might I improve on these areas?
3rd Chakra / Social Instinct:
Do I accept myself as I am, including my faults? Am I patient in facing my mistakes? Do I tend to be too rigid or too lenient with myself? How much importance do I give to what others think of me? Does my self-worth depend on my achievements and failures? Do I distinguish what I am from what I accomplish? or do I feel I “am” my accomplishments?
Transitional Level
At the second evolutionary level, we will work on the dominant passions. Usually, they operate as deep, unconscious motivations. Here, we focus on the heart chakra, the fourth chakra. According to ancient traditions of both Eastern and Western wisdom, the “heart” is the passion’s seat, which man must know and master to not be dominated by them. This is the time for people to work on their dominant passion. And such work certainly takes many years as one explores self-observation and self-reform.
As we said, the heart chakra is the “bridge” to the higher evolutionary level of consciousness. It corresponds to the transpersonal level. But the human heart must face its own passions. We all have within us, potentially active and operative, the nine passions noted in the Enneagram system: (1) Anger, (2) Pride, (3) Vanity, (4) Envy, (5) Greed, (6) Cowardice, (7) Gluttony, (8) Lust, and (9) Laziness.
One of these is necessarily our own dominant passion, our “Achilles heel”. It is essential to work extensively with the passions –with both our dominant passion and the others, before we can move to the next evolutionary level. At this point, we might ask ourselves:
Do I know and accept my dominant passion? What passion is next for me in terms of intensity? Can I distinguish on a day-by-day basis when my dominant passion is “working” me (even if other people do not notice it)? Can I identify how and how much my dominant passion has affected my life and relationships? On a scale from 1 to 10, how much am I attached to my dominant passion, as if it were the “core” of my own personal identity? What am I doing to make that my dominant passion have less of a harmful influence on my life?
Transpersonal Level
Third, after working deeply and steadily with the passions, we can move to work over other spiritual aspects such as our fixations, virtues, and the “holy” or transcendent ideas. The virtues and the transcendent ideas operate on the level of Essence or Being, as opposed to the level of Ego, including its passions and cognitive-fixations. (Note: While the fixations strictly relate to the Ego’s level, traditionally the fixations have being worked jointly with the transcendent ideas, since the latter are the “antidotes” for the fixations. This is the reason why in this case the cognitive-fixations are placed in the first transpersonal-level footstep, at the 5th chakra).
The 5th Chakra is related to authentic self-expression. While the Ego is a “false self”, which we have identified with during the formation of our personality, behind the ego, behind the “mask” that is our personality type (from the Latin, “persona” = mask), is our Essence, our authentic self, our essential self.
From the Enneagram spiritual-perspective, the virtues are Essential qualities. So, they are not the result of human “effort” to become oneself “virtuous”, but they manifest themselves spontaneously in a person’s life while their internal barriers being removed. That is, while a person is becoming more and more self-conscious, working to be less and less dominated by the passions, one becomes more able to love all beings without distinction.
The virtues operate as profound spiritual, altruistic motivations rooted in universal love. They are opposed to the “deficiency-motivation” that are the passions, whose roots are fear, ignorance and attachment.
Working on the 5th chakra involves removing the obstacles (passions) that prevent the expression of our Essential qualities, the 9 virtues; namely,
- Serenity (as opposed to Anger) – “Anger is not necessary; I accept things as they are.”
- Humility (as opposed to Pride) – “I have needs too, and I need help.”
- Authenticity (as opposed to Vanity) – “I am as just I am, with virtues and defects.”
- Equanimity (as opposed to Envy) – “Let it flow; everything comes and goes, and I accept it.”
- Generosity (as opposed to Greed) – “I give and receive; I share what I have and what I am.”
- Courage (as opposed to Cowardice) – “I can do it!; I trust myself, and I trust the universe.”
- Temperance (as opposed to Gluttony) – “I enjoy everything, every moment; I live in the present.”
- Compassion (as opposed to Lust) – “There is more strength in resisting than in attacking; I forgive you.”
- Diligence (as opposed to laziness) – “I do not evade myself in the inertia; I am aware and loving, here and now.”
The 6th Chakra is related to the mind’s functioning –both conscious and unconscious– including intuition. So to achieve a clear mind and an objective view of things, it is necessary to purify the mind as far as we can from prejudices and cognitive-mistakes. The Enneagram refers to “cognitive-fixations” rather than specific implicit-cognitive-mistakes. Cognitive-fixations necessarily correlate to the passions. (Note: There is no consensus about the name of cognitive-fixations, even some authors point to several fixations correspond to each passion). To wit:
- Criticism – “Always there is a mistake in anything. I know how things should be done.”
- Seduction – “I can give you what you need. You need me.”
- Deception – “I am what I accomplish. I am what I look like. I am the best one.”
- Dissatisfaction – “Only it matters the worst from the present and the best from the absent”.
- Stinginess – “I don’t have enough. Don’t ask me so much. So many demands bother me.”
- Doubt – “I cannot trust anyone nor anything. There is a danger anywhere.”
- Planning – “There is always a plan B. Why settle for what has already been done?.”
- Revenge – “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Showing weakness is unacceptable.”
- Indolence – “Ok, it’s all good. By adapting myself, I avoid conflicts.”
The fixations can be worked in two ways: directly, from self-observation, by sharpening the eyes to see the fixations acting daily in life, almost autonomously, i.e., when we work through them without a conscious propose. In fact, the fixations –attachment to the passions– operate from our “automatic pilot”, i.e., they work like emotional-cognitive patterns on which we rarely put attention, but they are underlying our usual thinking, feeling, acting and reacting to daily events. Moreover, some people propose to work on the fixations indirectly, i.e., through meditation practice, focusing on the transcendent ideas, the “antidotes” for the fixations.
The 7th Chakra is the “gateway” to connect our self with the transcendental level of essence, with the universe as a transcendental whole. The transcendent ideas (also called “holy” ideas) are precisely that. They work in the human mind as different approaches to the universe in its ultimate unity, integrating the whole diversity in the unity. So whoever fully opens the 7th Chakra also achieves a transcendent perspective from the holy ideas, and perceives the illusory nature of the both separation and disconnectedness, which are the typical ways the ego sees itself and everything.
In other words, the ego has a fundamental illusion believing that all things are “separate” from one another; that every person, everything is something “discrete”, separate from everything else. Hence, the ego’s basic orientation is “Every man for himself”. That is exactly the meaning we give to the term “egoism”, the idea that everyone should look out for himself and worse, that individual actions have no impact on the other people, nor on everything else. “Everyone — the ego thinks — must do what one wants,” as if this doesn’t have consequences, as if each ego is an “isolated entity” having an own universe. But it’s not, we all are in the same universe. The actions of each one impacts one or another, visibly or imperceptibly, at all times. But this is very difficult to perceive unless we have a mind detached from any kind of selfishness.
In short, the nine holy ideas are objective perspectives on the transcendent unity of the universe. We could synthesize them as follows:
- Perfection – “Everything is made from being.
- Will – “In the world there always are tendencies and initiatives.”
- Consistency – “In the diversity underlies harmony.”
- Origin – “All things refer to the same origin.”
- Connection – “Everything is connected.”
- Faith – “I can trust the being, because the being is.”
- Plan – “Behind the change underlies a sense, an order, a why.”
- Truth – “Truth means unity; the separation is just an illusion.”
- Love – “To love is to do good.”
We are made whole by our journey along this evolutionary “double entry” map. As we can see, both the Enneagram and the Chakras are systems aimed at raising the level of consciousness, to integrate different existential learning that leads a person to achieve a widening, wiser mind, a more loving, detached attitude, and a less selfish being.
To emphasize it once again, nothing good arises from the simple knowledge of our personality type. That is only the “first step” in the process of the consciousness evolution and the full development of our potential. The work of self-knowledge, self-observation and meditation can extend our inner-freedom range, so that we can gradually escape from the automatic passions and cognitive-fixations. In summary, we need:
– Knowledge of our instinctive subtype, identifying and working on the predominant one among them.
– Identifying our dominant passion and working on its influence in our decisions and actions.
– Growing the virtues.
– Dismantling the fixations.
– Meditation on the transcendent ideas.
All of these healthy actions fit, as we saw, in the gradual unblocking of the seven Chakras that leads us to the goal of a waking, generous, wise and loving consciousness.
Marcelo Aguirre
www.marceloaguirre.com
http://www.ninepointsmagazine.org/ex...rcelo-aguirre/
Yes, but it is just funny how one makes one dimensional projection with discreet types out of multidimensional stuff. Maybe it just corresponds to highest frequency of traits.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
I have said this many times: someone should start to put electrodes under people's armpits.
Anyways, there are plenty of failing systems in hard sciences. Start with chemistry and then try some nuclear physics.
Smelly electrodesQuote:
Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007
Who want to find relations better with additional knowledge. Many young people are such - they seek for own pair and had no serious struggles there still.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
+ people which do not feel satisfaction with what (or how) they do in the life or try to find what to do then (like youngs)
Socionics is for occupation + relations.
Jung would not like the idea to use it for occupation. But it may show stronger/weaker regions and values, what is useful.
If Jung was extravert mb he'd thought about group therapy and then IR. But to use types for relations he could be also against, as seems some Jungians thought that people with complementing your inferior/suggestive function will prevent you from developing in that region. Socionics says - duals may help you to develop there, to teach and stimulate you to grow closer to them.
I may add - this positive process needs love/friendship between those people, when they introject each other deeply. In other case it may work like those Jungians thought - you'll forget about that region as other one will care about it and then you may accentuate in your type.
yeah saying "Socionics targets people who have struggled with relationship problems" is assuming socionics targets anyone. I assume socionics is aimed at the whole world, but I could be wrong. in any case saying socionics is for people with relationship problems is like saying money making seminars are for people with money problems. half the people there probably have less money problems than the average person, theyre probably just there because they want to make more money and in that particular way. in that sense socionics attracts people 1) that want to improve their relationships regardless of their baseline status 2) are into psychological, specifically personality theories (which is actually a form of personal development and not necessarily other directed at all)
Targets and attracts now on practice - is not the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bertrand
Socionics can be used widely. But at now most people on socionics forums and which visit typers may to be with difficult relations or had such and now want better ones. If not mistyping problem - they'd had a good chance indeed. But for average forum's dude is better to forget about choosing pair not by instincts and heart, but also with types. Even the ones who teach others and type for money for years - sometimes mistake in own types. While in type or a pretty girl which you see several hours or even monthes, without good typing experience - to mistake is a lot easier. If you'll be lucky you'll get 3/16 of good IR for relations, but higher chance mistyping will lead to worse choice than did by instincts/feelings only.
I think I'd was not interested in Socionics if got good relations, instead of painful catastrophe.
yes that's all true. psychology is more popular in general with people who have encountered psychological issues
instinct stackings are very real
I can see how tritype could be a way to narrow down the types. I've generally dismissed it completely, but that is one use for it that could be quite helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
I agree very much, and you're right that I've said similar things before. You weren't imagining it. I think that exploring the health levels and integration/disintegration has been the most useful for me. The instincts were also personally useful to me. The sx enneagram 1 gets to who I am in a way that nothing else has, and in a way that the so and sp 1s, even though the same core type almost seem foreign in how much further removed they are from what drives me. Tritypes when I've looked at them have seemed shallow and general in comparison, without really explaining anything about a person, but admittedly I haven't spent much time on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylen
Lol crazedrat doesn't pack a punchQuote:
Originally Posted by lavos
Not sure. Somebody here nicknamed him "the slayer".Quote:
Originally Posted by Myst