Hi. Continuing the conversation with FarDraft in this thread (from this one: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p/56953-VI-Tip ), as (s)he suggested...
FarDraft, the floor is yours...
Hi. Continuing the conversation with FarDraft in this thread (from this one: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...p/56953-VI-Tip ), as (s)he suggested...
FarDraft, the floor is yours...
That's alright. Thanks for your responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
I do believe I'm a 4 core with a strong 9 fix. And EII. Probably not ESI. I relate to having Se PoLR. I'm an extremely gentle person, which is one of the reasons I've tended to think I'm Sx-blindspot (the other two reasons being that I'm not impulsive either, and the fact that the first test gave me So/Sp. (But other tests since then have given me other results)).Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Yeah I'm very artistic, but I tend to think I have a 5 wing, as it's double-reserved and anti-conformist.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Hmm, unsure of this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Relatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Hmm, not sure. I want to be independent, and hate asking for help, but maybe I'm not as independent as I'd like to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
I dislike being criticized alot, but I wouldn't say I'm very combative. I'm very gentle, like I said. Though Olimpia said that the stereotype of Sx 4s being aggressive comes from the fact that most of them have an 8 fix. I myself have a strong 9 fix and am Se PoLR.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Relatable.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Hmmmm.. maybe sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Yes, I do have a desire to be the most strange, weird and unique person in the universe, but another part of me (as much as I absolutely hate to admit it) wants to be accepted. Not sure how much I want to be part of a community, though. Yes, I do feel like I don't feel at home in the country where I live, and want to move to a different country, but I'm not sure how much I would want to participate in a 'community'. I do feel like I'm more driven to desire a romantic connection with that special someone, but I can't be sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Hmm, how is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
Reading up on the blindspots made me realize that I dislike people of all instinctual variants, haha.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
I dislike how the Sx instinct is described as the interesting one, and the other two as boring. Even just going by the names. The "sexual instinct" sounds a little more interesting than the "self-preservation instinct" or the "social instinct."
I have a desire to be Sx, I suppose, (admittedly), and it's manifesting in unhealthy, obsessive ways, for me.
Once again, thank you for your thorough insight.
Daed forum is daed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
I do believe, then, that I'm probably Sx before So, as I tend to dream of romance/sex more than dreaming of being in a group of friends or what have you. I'm curious as to why you say I'm probably Sp-dominant. Is it my reserved and gentle nature?Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
What I read was that particular blindspot-people tend to find those traits annoying when exhibited by other people. It said something like, "Sp-blindspots gets annoyed with people that has to have everything right, fiddling with the room temperature...Sx-blinds get annoyed by public displays of affection...So-blinds get annoyed by shallow chit-chat.." Something along those lines. And I realized I get annoyed with all three of them things.Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
And yeah I do value a lot of Sx traits, like romance,sex,passion,intimacy,art, etc. But not aggressiveness, impulsiveness or being a dick. And I have struggled with a lot of sexual guilt and shame over the years. But I've become a strong valuer of it (at least in the last two years or so).
So you're saying that Sx 4s are aggressive (regardless of their fixes and what not)? The Sx 4 descriptions tends to be very focused on aggression, hostility, and, just being a complete asshole. I (would like to think) I don't relate much to that. But I also have a hard time seeing how a 4 being focused on Sx/intimacy will somehow make the person aggressive, or how a 4 being focused on So will somehow make the person sad/melancholic. If people don't get the intimacy they want, aren't they just as likely to get sad as they are to get angry? And if people don't get the approval of their desired group, aren't they just as likely to get angry as they are to get sad?Quote:
Originally Posted by FarDraft
And how would an Sx 4 with a strong 9 fix and Se PoLR be?
I relate a lot more to the sadness and self-shame of the So 4 than the aggressiveness of the Sx 4.
Thank you for that analysis.
I'm gentle to a fault. I'm very unforgiving and unforgetting, but I probably won't try to bite the person. It's more of an inner emotional thing, and a "I can't smile at this person (too much), and I can't initiate conversations with this person (too much). They did [...] to me.." sort of thing. So, if anything, the punishment (if you can call it that) is a withholding, I suppose, rather than an attack/bite.Quote:
Originally Posted by Venus Rose
In terms of jealousy/envy, I have this as well. When there's a woman I'm interested in, it's almost like just seeing her talk to someone else makes me feel jealous. I always feel that everyone is more socially (and sexually, for that matter) more successful than I am. But it's not that I necessarily deep inside of me want to be a popular social butterfly. It's more that I feel like the woman of interest is neglecting me, I suppose, by giving attention to other people.
So far, I haven't had a lot of problems with health or money, but I do love comfort and security, and I'm not reckless or a big spender. I've always saved my money, though money is not something I spend a lot of time thinking about.
When I'm interested in someone, I tend to want to get them alone, I suppose. I guess I've always had an aversion (atleast in some respects) towards group interactions. I always feel like the outsider, the quiet one, the third wheel..
And I feel like someone out there is saying, "but just because you don't like groups, doesn't mean you're not SO." Well, I guess I'm confused, and will never understand what these instincts mean.
Of course I want to be a little bit famous (not too famous or mainstream), remembered when I die, not be in a low position in society, and I want to help the world to grow and evolve.
I remember Olimpia typed David Lynch as Sp dom (Sp/Sx) because he's very particular about his home。She showed a clip of him saying that he doesn't like to cook in his home. I don't understand what this has to do with Sp.
But then again I don't understand anything about these instincts.
Sp/sx is what I'm seeing @andreasdevig
I don't think the sx 4 description is exaggerated. One reads into and interprets however they want to with these descriptions. The sx 4 desires intense connection with another and when they don't receive that, it can make them angry and hateful, especially towards their lover or people close to them. I'd say they're a lot more volatile than the other subtypes of 4, but that doesn't mean they would resemble an 8. That's a bad comparison. A sx 4 is more or less the archetype of a vampire. Sp 4s are likely the most calm of the 4s and will focus more on environments that are comfortable and aesthetically pleasing, and may be more independent and sensually indulgent.
@Blue - Thank you for your input. Could you possibly maybe explain how intimacy (Sx) + individuality (4) equals vampiricism?
I do relate to the stoicism of the Sp 4 description. I don't want to take energy from others without giving anything back (like a vampire), nor do I want to be a 'drama king'. I try to keep my feelings inside, and I often feel guilt and shame when I don't.
And I guess I relate to the way you describe Sp 4s there.
I guess everybody wants to be Sx. I guess I better accept that I'm not one of the "cool guys." It breaks my heart to think I might not be part of that club of sexy, sexual, passionate, artistic, sexy vampire people. But I guess I better accept the truth (if it is indeed the truth).
Yes, sp 4 is the more stoic subtype, but if you're a 4w5, I would be careful not to confuse the self-contained quality of that type with the stoicism you mention. I also think maybe you're thinking I meant emotional vampire who take from others and don't give, but I just mean it as a collective symbol of the "vampire" and what that means, nothing more. It's the image that came to mind. I suppose if anything there's more of a jealous and possessive quality where the sx 4 and sx instinct in general wants the desired other all to themselves and idolizing the lover as having the potential to redeem you from your flawed state, which is the belief of the 4. See this link for a better explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
https://sites.google.com/site/upatel8/personalitytype4
@Blue
When I hear the word vampire I think of someone who takes from others, as that's what vampires do, it seems to me. They drink others' blood, and that person loses energy (blood) and the vampire gains it.
I can be very jealous and possessive, as I stated, and I can turn from love to hate, but I wouldn't expect my hypothetical partner to change according to my every hurt feeling.
But yes, although I (somewhat) easily feel infatuated sort of, with women, there're a lot of things that turn me off or give me 'red flags'. I'm very picky and idealistic.
You could say that's one way "competition" fueled by envy shows in sx 4. ;) They can also be very giving and understanding people too.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
Well I wouldn't rule out sx 4 then, if that's the case. How did you relate to the descriptions in link?Quote:
I can be very jealous and possessive, as I stated, and I can turn from love to hate, but I wouldn't expect my hypothetical partner to change according to my every hurt feeling.
But yes, although I (somewhat) easily feel infatuated sort of, with women, there're a lot of things that turn me off or give me 'red flags'. I'm very picky and idealistic.
Oh.. ohhh. Ohhhh. I get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue
You're naughty.
You're an Sx 4, huh?
"How did you relate to the descriptions in link?"
I would say I relate to Sp and Sx. Perhaps Sx slightly more so. This description doesnt involve the aggressiveness or hostility, so I can relate to it more.
Conversely, the So description here involves more of what I would consider stereotypical So stuff (stuff I don't relate to, like wanting to be part of a glamorous in crowd).
Stuff like this I definitely relate to though: "When they are more troubled, Social Fours fear social humiliation to such a degree that they may retreat from much social contact, becoming isolated and reclusive."
I was under the impression that the So 4 was more like an inverted So. In other words, someone who's repulsed by popularity and wants to be outside the system. Which is part of what has made the instincts so hard to understand for me.
Sx 5 actually is what I type as but I find the sx 4 a fascinating subject to study and have encountered a few of that type. I have a greater fear with intimacy and people getting close to me despite wanting it more than anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
I think those are better descriptions. I do think there's an aggressiveness in sx 4s while sp 4s tend to be a lot less angry. They can get angry but it's less common than in sx 4 who as I said before can be volatile. All sx types tend to be the more aggressive subtype in general.Quote:
"How did you relate to the descriptions in link?"
I would say I relate to Sp and Sx. Perhaps Sx slightly more so. This description doesnt involve the aggressiveness or hostility, so I can relate to it more.
Conversely, the So description here involves more of what I would consider stereotypical So stuff (stuff I don't relate to, like wanting to be part of a glamorous in crowd).
I think 4w5s would all relate to becoming isolated and reclusive in troubled times, but social humiliation is felt more acutely in Social 4.Quote:
Stuff like this I definitely relate to though: "When they are more troubled, Social Fours fear social humiliation to such a degree that they may retreat from much social contact, becoming isolated and reclusive."
Yes that's true. I also see this in types who would be so last about being repulsed by popularity.Quote:
I was under the impression that the So 4 was more like an inverted So. In other words, someone who's repulsed by popularity and wants to be outside the system. Which is part of what has made the instincts so hard to understand for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue
Yeah, I want it too, but it seems like an impossible task, for many reasons.
"I think those are better descriptions. I do think there's an aggressiveness in sx 4s while sp 4s tend to be a lot less angry. They can get angry but it's less common than in sx 4 who as I said before can be volatile. All sx types tend to be the more aggressive subtype in general."
Yeah that's one of the things that confuse me; that intimacy is somehow linked with aggression. I don't see the connection between those two. Or the connection between So and sadness.
"Yes that's true. I also see this in types who would be so last about being repulsed by popularity."
Mmmm.. so it sounds like being repulsed by popularity, etc. has no bearing on what your stacking is, from what you're saying.
(For Fours, I mean).
I don't see the connection between so and sadness either. Sx doms push for more intensity and want that charge from another which can lend itself to a kind of aggressiveness whereas sp doms would prefer more stability.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
Yes I don't think 4s would care about popularity in any way. That's for 3s! :king:Quote:
Mmmm.. so it sounds like being repulsed by popularity, etc. has no bearing on what your stacking is, from what you're saying.
(For Fours, I mean).
The instinctual stacking system doesn't resonate with me, to be frank. It's hard to make sense of it, and hard to relate to it, for me. For example, I think it's possible to want intimacy without being aggressive, and being aggressive without caring much for instimacy. I also don't see the connection between sadness and SO matters, like I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue
"Yes I don't think 4s would care about popularity in any way. That's for 3s! :king: "
Yeah, it was a different description of So 4s than I usually hear. This one was more to do with being part of an in crowd, being popular and what not.
From all the concepts, I found the instincts the hardest to understand, actually, including the stackings. It can take a while for you to familiarize yourself with it, especially if you are out of touch with your instinctual nature like I was.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
In terms of Social 4 and pronounced sadness/shame: It boils down to the tension between the Social's desire to fit in, and the 4's desire to be "unique"/different/stand out. In some way, the desires of the Social instinct and the Type 4 are opposed to each other. The more "different" you are, the more you will be excluded from the group. The Social 4 is painfully aware of that fact. At average to unhealthy levels, the 4 will become more and more "different" from the crowd like a black sheep, while intensely mourning the very fact that they are outsiders. It is a sort of contradictory mix of feeling proud of one's individuality but also ashamed of it due to society's dismissal of it.
Sexual 4s are often said to be more "aggressive", and I believe that mostly boils down to many if not most Sexual 4s having an 8 fix, actually. Whereas most if not all Social 4s have a 9 fix, in my experience. Sexual 4s with a 9 fix are usually more "soft", which can be reminiscent of the Social 4's softness.
Besides the tritype connection, Sexual 4s might be more "aggressive" than Social and Self-pres 4s in the sense that they are more "passionate"/intense. That heightened passionate streak might add more reactive outbursts of anger and the like. Sexual 4s can be the most "dramatic" in that sense. Not only that, the Sexual 4 tends to employ that passion and dramatics in order to attract a mate, almost like a mating call, haha. (They share that tendency with Sexual CP 6s and 8s.)
Agree. In case of sx 4s, they still can be a more aggressive subtype. They may feel and express anger more than sadness and act against their shame (despite feeling underlying shame). Sx 4s can be prideful even!Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
So 4s still want to belong. The group in this case would likely be more counter-cultural or elitist as opposed to popular. As Socials they still would like to have a sense of group identity. For 4s, goths for instance.Quote:
Yeah, it was a different description of So 4s than I usually hear. This one was more to do with being part of an in crowd, being popular and what not.
You mean female Sx CP 6s? Because for me (male) it's not the case. It depends on what you mean by "passion." For me it's being inquisitive, accusative and intellectual banter. As a social 4 drama is low key for me, rather like an undercurrent of sadness or in not following through. (maybe for some it's dramatic if I accuse them of wrong intents..., haha)Quote:
Originally Posted by Olimpia
As Sx 4 females I think of Tilda Swintons and Aimee Manns. They have this sad but neutral/flat vibe, keep their passion back to be normal. I think that pridefulness comes with contraflow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue
I do want to belong but earnestly, who doesn't? 8 has entitlement, 4w5 indulgence and a lot complaint and in my case, 4w3 it's more like feeling deserving better quality (sp 3), being a prince who deserves better company, more educated people.Quote:
So 4s still want to belong. The group in this case would likely be more counter-cultural or elitist as opposed to popular. As Socials they still would like to have a sense of group identity. For 4s, goths for instance.
I meant both male and female Sx CP 6s. :p What you call "inquisitive" and "intellectual banter" reminds me rather of 5, possibly 6w5. An example of a Sx/So 6w5 was Christopher Hitchens, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Tilda Swinton strikes me rather as SX last actually, So/Sp 4, that would also explain her "neutral/flat vibe", lack of Sx.
@Blue @Olimpia @Neokortex Thanks for your contributions. I may be missing something here, but I fail to see the connections of intimacy and aggression, the 'social sphere' and sadness. I don't see how someone who's focused on intimacy would be more aggressive than someone focused on recognition, belonging to a group, etc.. Or how a person focused on belonging to a group would be more sad than someone focused on intimacy..
I think when people don't get the intimacy they want, they tend to get sad.
For an Fi person with Se PoLR, I think it's easy to be half-drawn and half-repulsed by the Sx descriptions. What you see isn't always what you get. As unemotional as Fi can seem to non-users, what goes on inside the user is a different story. Many people might think I'm a Thinker or Logical person. Keeping the emotions inside is business as usual for Fi users, but I fail to see how that necessarily makes them unemotional or lacking interest in intimacy. I just can't see the connection.
Maybe I'm indeed missing something, but, for now, the instincts don't much resonate with me, my inner values, emotions, intellect or logic. So, as I continue on my journey, to become what IEIs call an "intuitively enlightened being," I will continue, in my search... For well-being. For health. For peace and happiness, in my solitude. For stoicism. For intimacy. For romance. For passion. For art. And maybe even for some recognition.
It's worth remembering here that it's not Sx = aggression and So = sad in general but specifically when talking about 4. Social three and seven aren't sad, for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
From what I understand, Sx 4 is aggressive because they have a sense of demanding what is rightfully theirs (at least in the Chestnut / Naranjo descriptions - though these are more extreme I think). They want to be special and significant in the eyes of their partner, which makes them jealous, possessive and angry when they aren't. Then with So 4, I think Olympia described it well with saying they both love and hate the fact that they don't fit in, but in whichever way they feel it, they are VERY aware of it. It's being able to read social situations with incredible detail and then focusing on every way in which they fall short (such as: "my joke didn't get as many laughs as my friend's joke", "I tripped and everybody saw", "everyone is talking about this thing and I don't know about it", "other people make friends easier than I do" or alternatively: "my joke was too clever for people to understand", "everybody likes this thing and I don't because I have better taste", "I'm more complicated which is why I don't fit in"). So that's why they feel shame more acutely. Shame is probably a better word than sad.
Took a glance at Hitchens - 5 is there... might have a w6 but at the core he is a 3. I can even see him as a 5w4 for his emphasis on being attacked for his critique. Not Sx/So - he seems to be a "beta" extrovert with more Sp-dom vibes (like my uncle).Quote:
Originally Posted by Olimpia
Took another look at Swinton - the social and contraflow is there but her strong presence and the way she patronizes the interviewer somewhat in the beginning makes me think of Sx/So 4w5, such as Alain de Botton (we've had a debate about him already on PerC). I think her "pride" is an addition to her current fame, possibly inflated ego. The "flat vibe" is not the lack of Sx but the tucking it away - Sx aux. are the ones who don't mind showing it off, "creative instinct." For Sx dom it's riskier and the British upbringing may play into that.
But back to the initial matter: I don't know about 8s but I, as a Sx CP 6, don't employ passion and dramatics to attract a mate. What I employ is actually intellectual dominance, a sort of aggression, "contrarianness." Doesn't really work, tho. :DDDD
"intuitively enlightened being?" Sounds like a marketing slogan for one of these "spiritual" esoteric businesses. Anyways, "instincts" is a misleading word, they had to be branded somehow. The debate is still on whether or not humans, as a species, have "instincts."Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
Once again, someone getting typed Beta just because they are Sx/So. :p You are proving my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
It is true that British upbringing might play a role, however, nevertheless the second instinct can be quite "exhibitionistic" (even under some restraint). It is like a light, it will shine through, even amidst clouds. So/Sx is the lightest stacking, like a butterfly. An So/Sx individual is gonna play with attraction and passion. Tilda is very much not doing so, she seems uninterested in seeming sexually attractive or passionate. She is quite dry in that sense. Untypical of SX second.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
TBH, I am bewildered by your use of Enneagram/Tritype. Must be your Creative Ne. :p It is all over the place. Reminds me of an LII 5w6 guy I know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
I still wouldn't suggest going by the CN description, and it's even more dangerous to amplify some things and make it sound like oh but the CN description isn't so far off...no it seems very far off, and it's unfair to twist and fit things into it. It should fit comfortably, otherwise there is no need to twist yourself to fit into it.
I have a little theory, which I could be wrong about. I don't know. But I find it difficult to imagine a truly narcissistic Fi-dom, specially EIIs who belong to Delta. I have never thought something was "rightfully mine," or been aggressive the way the description suggests. I am not capable of that level of cruelty, unless of course if I were pushed into it due to trauma etc. because at that point people can be pushed into doing anything unconsciously.
Anyways, I mean...being jealous when you feel like you are not good enough, feeling at least some sense of hate because the other person is better than you in some way, better able to be loved, more 'attractive' (though I suspect Fi users might translate attractive into "lovable" that may be how the instinct operates in them...at least that's how I make sense of it anyway). Well these feelings - I don't know, they seem kind of...just human to me.
I think one thing to remember with the enneagram is that it's highlighting your negative potential or qualities, and it is an option for you to get to know yourself better such that you don't given in quite so much to your negative qualities. What they call "integration."
Anyways, I don't come on here very much. If you want to have a longer conversation about this, we can (you know how to get in touch :) Btw, this is Venus Rose).
I meant "beta male," so not "alpha male" but more self-contained, nerdy. You can see self-pres in his body movements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olimpia
Depends on what you mean by "sexual attraction" and "passion." I just look at what social position the person takes, whether it's more adaptive to others or if she's trying to be more dominating and individualistic at the same time. Swinton has her own 4w5 style (which is not about physical sexuality), yet she still have some of that audacity, brashness, to go public with it and take it on with Steven Colbert ("transmitting instinct"). In the latter and in the vitality with which she does it can I find her "passionate" and "sexually attractive."Quote:
It is true that British upbringing might play a role, however, nevertheless the second instinct can be quite "exhibitionistic" (even under some restraint). It is like a light, it will shine through, even amidst clouds. So/Sx is the lightest stacking, like a butterfly. An So/Sx individual is gonna play with attraction and passion. Tilda is very much not doing so, she seems uninterested in seeming sexually attractive or passionate. She is quite dry in that sense. Untypical of SX second.
Read this from your blog and to me it reads like an Si dom's take on the flows.Quote:
TBH, I am bewildered by your use of Enneagram/Tritype. Must be your Creative Ne. :p It is all over the place. Reminds me of an LII 5w6 guy I know.
Ohh you meant "beta male" haha okay, difficult to know the difference on a Socionics forum :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Interestingly I don't think he is a "beta male". :thinking: He stood up for himself and could actually be sort of charming.
Hm I don't "see self-pres", I just see low sensing, but fair enough.
So/Sp can be socially outspoken, Amal Clooney would be an example of an So/Sp 1 imo, she is an outspoken lawyer. She actually seems more in touch with physical attraction in the way she dresses, but that could just boil down to her being Si ego (whereas Tilda is EII imo). So/Sp individuals, especially with a strong 3 fixation, can try to look sexually attractive in the eyes of society, but there will be a certain lack of fire behind it, it is more like they are bill boards rather than humans of the flesh. That impression is being doubled if the individual is Intuitive, like Tilda. She pretty much comes across more of an "image"/idea than a breathing, living person. She is not corporeal, nor "offensive" like SX tends to be. SX is the most competitive instinct, it will fight against others to breed with what they deem to be "the best" (they can get), and I don't see that fixation being at the forefront for her at all. She seems rather like an individual who would be fine with loose connections. SX seems to be last in her list of priorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Fair enough. But wouldn't I like your use of Ne more if I was Si dom?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrrmaid
Thank you. For me, I'm a jealous and possessive person, though I wouldn't necessarily expect my hypothetical partner to live accordingly (in other words, to always make the decisions that don't hurt my feelings). I don't resonate with the aggression aspect. I try to not let those feelings completely guide the way I behave towards people (make me a dick). I try to be as fair and soft-spoken as I can be. For me, jealousy and possessiveness results in sadness and maybe avoidness. Not hostility, and certainly not aggression. And so I don't see how aggression fits in with intimacy (Sx), individuality (Four), etc. But oh well. Guess I'll never understand it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Yes. Thank you for your insight. I have a slightly different perspective, but you sound quite skeptical. "You must believe, Neo." - some quote from some crappy, overrated movie.
Also, my honest opinion is that it's quite childish and rude to label people 'beta males' and 'alpha males' and so on and so forth.. As you guys are doing here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous
Thank you, Venus. :)
Are you referring to The Matrix (1999)? According to Sidneyeve Matrix, it deliberately played into the ICT industry at a time when computer companies realized the cyberpunk genre would increase their sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
In Enneagram alpha/beta matters: which guy do you feel more safe with? the asthenic ectomorph that is integrated into society, has friends or the "anti-social" loner who has no social capital?
I'd have to watch more of him to tell more but the self-pres is apparent in him having a static body position - he doesn't move around a lot, doesn't have wide gesticulations, he's sitting comfortably like a fat toad. Definitely not the Sp/So hypochondriac, contra-flow instead and "beta male" because of his body type and E5 traits. Traits such as: less social flair, less Fe, more cold/theoretical but at the same time "geek" in the sense that he is trying to use his ideas working with the social, in an opportunistic way, has that ENTPish entrepreneurial/brainstormy flexibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olimpia
With the first part I agree, except that she seems to be more focused, more self-confident, an INFJ/IEI. Each enneatype's sexuality may manifest differently. I haven't binged on Tilda vids but from seeing how assertive she was with Colbert so far, I'd say she's more present, more "on the ball." I can see Tilda wanting really intimate connections on the level of emotions... as an So/Sp 4 myself, she really does intimidate me (I feel like if I stared long into her eyes, I'd unravel). Your idea of an Sx 4 with an 8 fix may be more frequent with sensors. If she had a 1, though, that would answer your feeling her "dry" - sx blind 1s are indeed dry, "sterile." All the variants are different configurations, 4s may not immediately jump to being offensive and competitive since they are primarily a self-surrendering type. Her competitiveness and "offensiveness" I see in her persistence at portraying kooky, out of the world, nutty female characters - it's not just her w5 that reinforces that uncompromise/authenticity but the lack of shame (for a Scottish villager, she had to have more than luck to land on scripts that expected that, so perhaps her willpower also played a part).Quote:
So/Sp can be socially outspoken, Amal Clooney would be an example of an So/Sp 1 imo, she is an outspoken lawyer. She actually seems more in touch with physical attraction in the way she dresses, but that could just boil down to her being Si ego (whereas Tilda is EII imo). So/Sp individuals, especially with a strong 3 fixation, can try to look sexually attractive in the eyes of society, but there will be a certain lack of fire behind it, it is more like they are bill boards rather than humans of the flesh. That impression is being doubled if the individual is Intuitive, like Tilda. She pretty much comes across more of an "image"/idea than a breathing, living person. She is not corporeal, nor "offensive" like SX tends to be. SX is the most competitive instinct, it will fight against others to breed with what they deem to be "the best" (they can get), and I don't see that fixation being at the forefront for her at all. She seems rather like an individual who would be fine with loose connections. SX seems to be last in her list of priorities.
She wouldn't be acting (4ish roles) if she was "double withdrawn," as you describe 4w5 in your blog. As for offensiveness, in Alain de Botton's case I could find his contra-flow only after hours of binging on his vids. They may show it only sparsely on camera. The previous vid I linked allows, for a brief moment, a glimpse into her inner "unruly, nasty child."Quote:
[...]Tilda Swinton strikes me rather as SX last actually, So/Sp 4,[...]
No..., you wouldn't. :DDD Ne is supposed to be "all over the place" for those who can't follow it's "train of connecting the dots." ;)Quote:
Fair enough. But wouldn't I like your use of Ne more if I was Si dom?
That's a fair point. I still think there is an anger to the subtype, however that may show up. They are more likely to turn their pain into anger, or be more conscious of anger in their personality, and that doesn't mean treating others like an ass or being disrespectful to others, as seems to be how that quality of "aggression" is being interpreted here. You can release your anger and frustration out on things other than people right? Even turn it in on oneself perhaps? 4s in general, like all image types, are said to be a type that has issues with hostility and identity fwiw, or so says Riso-Hudson below.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
I don't think people who are Se PoLR can escape this as 4s, honestly.Quote:
Two major themes in this Triad involve identity issues (“Who am I?”) and problems with hostility (“I hate you for not loving me in the way I want!”). Because Twos, Threes, and Fours unconsciously know that their identity is not an expression of who they really are, they respond with hostility whenever their personality-identity is not validated. Hostility serves both to deflect people who might question or devalue this identity, and to defend these types against deeper feelings of shame and humiliation.
You're certainly not sx last. Haha the way you wrote this is almost sp (well-being, health, stocism)/sx (intimacy, romance, passion), and so last (and maybe even for some recognition). Was that deliberate? :shock: You have the idea, so it's a matter of just determining which is your priority.Quote:
Maybe I'm indeed missing something, but, for now, the instincts don't much resonate with me, my inner values, emotions, intellect or logic. So, as I continue on my journey, to become what IEIs call an "intuitively enlightened being," I will continue, in my search... For well-being. For health. For peace and happiness, in my solitude. For stoicism. For intimacy. For romance. For passion. For art. And maybe even for some recognition.
Right. Depending on who you ask some will say the sx subtype is usually the more aggressive subtype in general of each specific type.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrrmaid
Well said. That is exactly how I see it play out in Social 4s.Quote:
From what I understand, Sx 4 is aggressive because they have a sense of demanding what is rightfully theirs (at least in the Chestnut / Naranjo descriptions - though these are more extreme I think). They want to be special and significant in the eyes of their partner, which makes them jealous, possessive and angry when they aren't. Then with So 4, I think Olympia described it well with saying they both love and hate the fact that they don't fit in, but in whichever way they feel it, they are VERY aware of it. It's being able to read social situations with incredible detail and then focusing on every way in which they fall short (such as: "my joke didn't get as many laughs as my friend's joke", "I tripped and everybody saw", "everyone is talking about this thing and I don't know about it", "other people make friends easier than I do" or alternatively: "my joke was too clever for people to understand", "everybody likes this thing and I don't because I have better taste", "I'm more complicated which is why I don't fit in"). So that's why they feel shame more acutely. Shame is probably a better word than sad.
I'm not familiar with either very much, but I would say Tilda is social. Her image to me is identifying with that outsider status in a very overt way that others can recognize. When I think of sx 4 females I think of Shirley Manson from Garbage and Lyyke Li. This is what I mean with sx 4s and aggression said by Manson: "I have a temper on me that could hold back tides," or Lykke Li, "I wanted to create something really aggressive and psychedelic." Lyyke Li seems like a sx 4 with a 9 fix too btw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Yes, that's the attraction to an elitist group.Quote:
I do want to belong but earnestly, who doesn't? 8 has entitlement, 4w5 indulgence and a lot complaint and in my case, 4w3 it's more like feeling deserving better quality (sp 3), being a prince who deserves better company, more educated people.
Many men falsely believe that "beta male" boils down to lack of big muscles and being intellectual. That's simply not true. Jordan Peterson isn't a "beta male" either. "alpha" bs "beta" boils down to strength of character for most women, afaik. A guy with muscles can be "beta" if he acts like a "p*ssy" and has no opinions, no boundaries, no self esteem/confidence, is a pushover, acts insecure/needy, etc. Christopher Hitchens does/is none of that, so i think he's not "beta". He might not "look" "Alpha", but his personality and confidence are strong, and he's socially savvy, so women won't think too poorly of him in that respect. But to be fair, I might be biased. Also it's amusing to see that you type him ILE and WSS types him ESI. :p I think the truth is in the middle: ILI-Te. He even fits "the critic" stereotype.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
4w5 can be Social first, which results in an "ambiverted" focus/outlook.
It is not a matter of not comprehending the "dots", but merely not finding them helpful. :p I find it makes matters too convoluted.
I'm not surprised. There were at least three movies dealing with themes of virtual reality, mindbendage, philosophy, reality twists, etc. that came out that spring of 1999. You had the Matrix (1999), eXistenZ (1999) and the Thirteenth Floor (1999). Obviously the best of these was the 13th Floor (1999). Second place eXistenZ (1999). And then wayyyy down at last place, in third place... you had the Matrix (1999).Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it's beside the point, as I see it. Labeling people as 'beta males', to me, reeks of a sort of "Look at this beta male pussy ****** loser cuck. What a fucking ******. Look at this cuck.. Let us all point at him and call him names and make fun of him, for his inability to get laid. What a loser. Fag." Not extremely mature or civilized, if you ask me.Quote:
In Enneagram alpha/beta matters: which guy do you feel more safe with? the asthenic ectomorph that is integrated into society, has friends or the "anti-social" loner who has no social capital?
Yeah that was deliberate, hehe. It was me trying to say that I relate to all the instincts. Which I do, but I also simultaneously don't. I relate to stuff in all of them, and non-relate to stuff in all of them. With Socionix, I feel fairly certain I'm EII. In Enneagream, I relate to the 4 and the 9 as well. But in terms of the instincts, there isn't any of them that makes me say, "Yeah that's definitely me." Nor is there any one of them that makes me go, "That's definitely not me," as I recall. I thought I was So/Sp, partly because that's what the first test gave me (4w5 5w4 [9w1?] So/Sp). I can't be sure, but I'm thinking So blindspot is possible. I do relate to stuff from there, though, as well.. such as the inner conflict between wanting to be accepted and wanting to be different.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue
If you relate to 9 as well as four, and not the anger or spitefulness of four, could that be your type? 9 sx with a 4 fix might work. Fwiw I think all fours have a certain amount of entitlement and spite to them, and 4 sx most of all.
(I only skimmed through this tbh and don't know you at all so if you mentioned here or elsewhere why you picked 4 over 9 then ignore me :p )
It's possible. I've tended to relate slightly more to 4 than 9. I'm not aggressive in the least, though. I'm gentle to a fault. I didn't know 4s were necessarily aggressive, perhaps given that a good portion of them seem to be Se PoLRs.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrrmaid
I guess I will elaborate on what I think of SX combined with 4...
I am honestly quite sick and tired of the stereotypes roaming around. Not aimed at anyone specific! You guys have provided good information for andreasdevig to reflect on, but I feel the urge to provide my own perspective since I see this somewhat differently.
I don't think all SX 4s are automatically entitled, narcissistic, and spiteful. Specially combined with an Fi base...it just doesn't make any sense. I consider EII, for instance, to tend towards modesty. Perhaps a 5 wing could contribute to being attracted to human, authentic, raw things, instead of something mostly based on image (which is central to 4 anyway, even with 5 wing, but the narcissistic aspect of it is probably highlighted with 3 wing, and possibly the other qualities that neither I not andreasdevig relates to).
Here are the things I don't relate to (and perhaps several other SX 4s don't either):
- entitlement
- narcissism
- spitefulness in the way it is described
- lack of empathy basically
- anger
- aggression (hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront).
(People might disagree on the last one for me but I have not been myself on this forum due to previous recent trauma with abuse and bullying. I wouldn't say I attack people at all most of the time, except the rare instances. Otherwise I mostly just want peace).
- malicious
- wanting to be superior
- being "consciously aware" of their anger
- "demanding what is rightfully theirs"
- "They want to be special and significant in the eyes of their partner"
(mostly issue with significant in the last one, that sounds very 3._
Actually, I should copy paste what 3 is, because a lot of what is attributed to 4, reminds me of type 3. Hence why I cannot relate to it because type 3 is heavily in my shadow, it has basically nothing to do with my personality.
- to want to be significant in their partner's eyesQuote:
THE ACHIEVER
Enneagram Type Three
The Success-Oriented, Pragmatic Type:
Adaptable, Excelling, Driven, and Image-Conscious
- wants to be superior, aka compete.Quote:
Basic Fear: Of being worthless
- narcissism. though not limited to any specific type.
For 3 competition arises from...basically anything. To me that is the ocean they swim in. They have to 'excel' no matter what. I would think with SX added to that, they would indeed want to be 'the best' so to speak. That sounds very 3, and I am inclined to attribute it to 4w3s and 3s and in general.Quote:
Basic Desire: To feel valuable and worthwhile
I am not a very competitive person. I rather give up before I even try.
This might be 8 and/or 8 influence:
entitlement
- narcissism
- spitefulness in the way it is described
- lack of empathy basically
- anger
- aggression (hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront).
- malicious
- being "consciously aware" of their anger
- "demanding what is rightfully theirs"
actually, almost all of it can be very 8. Which would explain why 9 fixed 4s don't relate to it.
As for your "core" type, I believe all types go down to your core, but to simplify it, whatever is at the heart of things that are bothering you consciously and unconsciously and affecting your behavior most so in the present and in the past, would be your "core" type in the enneagram.
I am very shy, modest, nice, peaceful albeit - intense at times, emotional, i can indeed "bite" so to speak when hurt, but that anger isn't there because im entitled, it's there because i think I feel that im ugly and repulsive to the core (im not actually but, that's how it feels at times). It's not hatred because of some entitlement, it's hatred because i hate myself and all i can see in the other person's eyes is the same thing. I could go deeper into it and but needless to say im not comfortable with the predominant image of a SX 4 being forced onto me or super-imposed onto me. I don't really want to argue or be attacked about this, unless you wanted to do it non-aggressively.
Type 4: "there's something horribly wrong with me, I am ugly inside" + SX: my meaning in everything, sense of self, self worth, and very life essence itself seems to be tied to the 'special other half': There's something horribly ugly at my core, but I must find someone who will love me regardless.
None of that, in my opinion, necessitates vengeance, lack of empathy, entitlement, spitefulness etc. etc.
But then I probably look at those things differently than others do.
Just wanted to respond to these because they were my words. Only they aren't at all, I pulled them both from SX 4 descriptions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous
- Tom CondonQuote:
Want to be Number One in their beloved’s heart or the only person their partner has ever loved; could be jealous of their partner’s past relationships"
- NaranjoQuote:
Connected to a hateful emotionality, an attitude of superiority sometimes exists along with —and in compensation for—a bad self-image. Though the individual may seethe in self-deprecation and self-hate, the attitude to the outer world is in this case that of a “prima-donna” or at least a very special person. When this claim of specialness is frustrated it may be complicated by a victimized role of “misunderstood genius.” In line with this development, individuals also develop traits of wit, interesting conversation, and others in which a natural disposition towards imaginativeness, analysis, or emotional depth (for instance) are secondarily put to the service of the contact need and the desire to summon admiration.
Being significant is 100000% a four thing. They want to be special and not mundane. Three is about success and usefulness. Significant is about being unique and noteworthy. Even as a 4 So I have an unhealthy obsession with wanting to be the best, most loved partner my boyfriend has ever had. I used that word specifically because I saw it in a type 4 description and it really stuck out and resonated with me - though I can't remember which one it was. Chestnut uses the word 'special' a lot, which basically is being used in the same way I was using 'significant' above:
Quote:
While Twos strive to have a likable, pleasing image, and Threes create an image of achievement and success, Fours present themselves as unique and special
- from "The Complete Enneagram"Quote:
The specific experience and expression of envy in Fours, however, differs by subtype. The Social Four dwells in a sense of deficiency and shame heightened by actively envying others; the Self-Preservation Four denies envy by strenuously pursuing whatever is seen as lacking; and the Sexual Four gets competitive, striving to prove themselves as superior, in response to feeling envious.
("Special" and "significant" don't have to be positive words here: they just mean not mundane ;) )
Riso & Hudson use the words "assertive", "aggressive", "dynamic" and "possessive" for sexual four. Maitri uses the word "hate", Naranjo "the mad four", Chestnut "competition" and "hostility."
Maybe this is exaggerated by 8 fixes, like mentioned above, but it goes beyond just being a "stereotype" when basically every major enneagram writer says the same thing.
fwiw I don't see myself as aggressive in the classic sense either and I don't think anyone would describe me as that but I am very competitive, envious and spiteful. I have to check myself for all of these things all the time. I.e. on an average - unhealthy day, someone can't get complimented in front of me without me turning that inward on myself (self criticism for not being the one getting complimented) and spite for the other (immediately picking up on their flaws). When I was still in my teens and not as smooth as I am now, someone got complimented for something that was usually MY thing to get complimented for and I very loudly derided them and undermined the compliment in earshot of that person, for example. Not great but also something I still do in my head. For comparison's sake, in the same situation my 3w4 friend just talks more about her own achievements, and will one-up them and show off rather than try to drag the other down.
Hope this didn't come across as aggressive, since I know you said you didn't want to argue. Just wanted to explain why I chose to describe sx four in the way I did. Even with Se PoLR you should still be more aggressive than other EII 4s (and noticeably more so than 9s). I also imagine most 4s have 1D Se since I associate it with IEI + EII predominantly so being Se PoLR shouldn't change much.
I think archetypes are like guiding lights, it doesn't make the entirety of you. I just don't want something forced on me that doesn't belong to me. I would think others would feel similarly too...and because none of this is scientific...people have their own way of interpreting these archetypes, and imo it's fine to talk about how you personally see things, even if it differs from the way others have described it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrrrmaid
Yeah, well, it depends on the way "significance" is stated. I associate an overt desire to be "unique" and to be "significant" with type 3 influence. I just cannot see that in myself...Quote:
Being significant is 100000% a four thing. They want to be special and not mundane.
5 being a head type, with it brings an unconscious feeling of being irredeemably and horribly broken inside, but not necessarily a conscious urge to be "unique, significant and compete." I don't care about those things. It's just...again not something I am and not something I ever have been...
Being unique and noteworthy by playing on society's terms and "competing" and coming out the best again in the eyes of the status quo - that's 3.Quote:
Three is about success and usefulness. Significant is about being unique and noteworthy.
4s don't care, imo. Of course, 4 with 3 influence can be like that.
Threes can very much care about being unique just in the way you described, but like I said, they want to be, but they don't necessarily already feel unique in the sense of being the "ugly duckling"! That's 4. Everything else...well I can see that as other types as well, including 3.
4s are already nothing like anyone else, why bother competing? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that haha, just trying to provide I guess what they might be thinking.
Honestly though, I don't think anyone else is not "deep" it's just that people can act in shallow, uninteresting ways at times and what 4 wants more than anything is to see your 'ugliness' if you will, they just want you to be you. The 'authentic' you. No one is 'deeper' than anyone else...
Yeah, it sounds like 3-ishness again. I mean it could be 4 but it also sounds like 3 mixed in there, which is why I don't relate to it at all.Quote:
Even as a 4 So I have an unhealthy obsession with wanting to be the best, most loved partner my boyfriend has ever had. I used that word specifically because I saw it in a type 4 description and it really stuck out and resonated with me - though I can't remember which one it was. Chestnut uses the word 'special' a lot, which basically is being used in the same way I was using 'significant' above:
As for wanting to be "most loved" I mean anyone I think would like to mean the absolute world to the other person...I think. But then, I think most of these archetypes are human, anyway.
"special" and "significant" to me feels like...idk like something artificial. It's not natural. I can't relate to those words specifically. 4s hone their 'uniqueness' because they already feel ugly inside in the sense of being uglier than everyone else - and so "unique" in that way. "Special" and significant the way it is used in society usually, I associate with type 3. Special and significant in the eyes of the status quo.Quote:
("Special" and "significant" don't have to be positive words here: they just mean not mundane ;) )
Chestnut copied from Naranjo as far as I can tell. Also, this is from word of mouth, I don't have actual proof yet - but apparently Naranjo took back his description of the SX 4 saying he didn't consider it as accurate anymore. :shrug:Quote:
Riso & Hudson use the words "assertive", "aggressive", "dynamic" and "possessive" for sexual four. Maitri uses the word "hate", Naranjo "the mad four", Chestnut "competition" and "hostility."
Those authors may have re-stated the previous information on the enneagram types, perhaps not wanting to change much about them.
I think there can be many variations on a type, I am not going to box "Sx 4s" into anything yet. Except maybe the very basic core.
I could perhaps be wrong but maybe they...Quote:
Maybe this is exaggerated by 8 fixes, like mentioned above, but it goes beyond just being a "stereotype" when basically every major enneagram writer says the same thing.
1) copied from each other
and 2) possibly took the loudest example of an SX 4 since it was most obvious. Like I said, spitefulness and meanness are actually pretty human...I can certainly see that someone driven by envy could behave that way.
But the problem comes with Se PoLRs. Se PoLR descriptions explicitly state xIIs would not at all be into those things. At all.
But since not all SX4s would be Se PoLR or even the louder version of the type...they may have been omitted from these descriptions.
I know we are talking about types here but... honestly this just sounds normal. Not saying it is unrelated to type but I think sometimes people project very human things onto type. I think I would give Se PoLR 4s some leeway with that "envious and spiteful" stuff though.Quote:
fwiw I don't see myself as aggressive in the classic sense either and I don't think anyone would describe me as that but I am very competitive, envious and spiteful.
I am not mean, I don't want to do something like that. Not judging you, it's just not something I would do.Quote:
I have to check myself for all of these things all the time. I.e. on an average - unhealthy day, someone can't get complimented in front of me without me turning that inward on myself (self criticism for not being the one getting complimented) and spite for the other (immediately picking up on their flaws). When I was still in my teens and not as smooth as I am now, someone got complimented for something that was usually MY thing to get complimented for and I very loudly derided them and undermined the compliment in earshot of that person, for example. Not great but also something I still do in my head. For comparison's sake, in the same situation my 3w4 friend just talks more about her own achievements, and will one-up them and show off rather than try to drag the other down.
It also sounds...normal. Perhaps you might get a little exasperated with me pointing this out but...after all the e-types are universal human themes/archetypes, haha.
I am not aggressive, using the description that I used for my last post. Unless I get hurt badly, which rarely happens, obviously. My heart has to be broken badly. Even then I wouldn't go against my values (Fi) or be cruel to someone (Se PoLR).Quote:
Hope this didn't come across as aggressive, since I know you said you didn't want to argue. Just wanted to explain why I chose to describe sx four in the way I did. Even with Se PoLR you should still be more aggressive than other EII 4s (and noticeably more so than 9s). I also imagine most 4s have 1D Se since I associate it with IEI + EII predominantly so being Se PoLR shouldn't change much.
Many people are aggressive, spiteful, vindictive, envious - imo most people are capable of these things...4-ishness or not. The thing with EIIs though is that they try their best to steer clear of those things. Of course extreme instances and trauma can drive any type into doing really anything, but generally speaking.
If we go by Naranjo description, the SO 4 would be me, even though I am not Social first. I just want to make clear I am definitely not the SX 4 description lol, and the social 4 is strikingly very much like me. It was wayyy too accurate. Except my issues are not tied to the social realm as intensely as they are to the SX realm. But in my demeanor, I am absolutely the SO 4 description and not the SX 4. Which is why I don't think they necessarily got the subtype right.
The second manifestation of our PoLR is a complete aversion to force, aggression, conflict, violence, competition, and the whole idea of bending people and situations to get what one wants. This is where you get the “overly sensitive” aspect of our personalities.
!!!
This. This is important (taken from an Se PoLR description for EII, I am sure you can find more if you look). But to say that SX 4s HAVE to be those things...wouldn't that imply Se PoLRs can't be SX 4s? Haha.
The rest of it:
YES!!!Quote:
If someone says something in a way that is remotely confrontational, we retreat. If someone really wants to argue, we fall silent. If people are fighting, we will either try to settle the disagreement, get up and leave, or both. We will not “intrude on others' space,” whether physically or psychologically. We are virtually incapable of making anyone do anything or refusing a request. No matter how badly we may want something, if you flatly refuse, we are likely to back down, at least after a short while. EIIs do not make things happen – we prefer to wait for them to happen or let someone else take the lead. In those rare occasions where we try to be forceful, we become extremely uncomfortable and vulnerable. It's terrifying. We want everyone to get along, to share their thoughts in an accepting and peaceful discourse. We want everyone to “win” and leave unscarred, and since that seldom happens in an Se environment, we avoid such environments.
Sorry lol, im just glad that that descriptions understands me so damn well, hahaha.
I have been on defense and uncomfortable having to engage my "Se" which I am sure I am horrible at, but yes it makes me feel horribly vulnerable. I prefer an environment where people aren't fighting or trying to step on each other. At least, I would like to be left in peace. You can disagree but please don't attack me, try to make me look stupid, over-write what I actually mean with something else entirely etc.
I tried to not bold at least something but I couldn't find anything that I shouldn't bold. That description is completely me.
Okay I won't respond to most of this because you said you didn't want to debate and I don't particularly either but this bit I think is us using different language for the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous
"Being unique and noteworthy by playing on society's terms" - you added this bit, I never mentioned playing on society's terms and that is indeed threeish. I said in the eye's of the partner. There's nothing that I said that suggests wanting prestige (though I think 4w3 could want that) but it's just not being normal. This could also be negative, like I mentioned above, in that it could be "I am the MOST ugly duckling", "I suffer more than other people", "I'm not like other people", all of which is the core of 4 and all of which are the four seeking to be noteworthy because that's a way of dealing with that pain. Calling yourself an ugly duckling is calling yourself significant in a negative way because it's still distinguishing yourself from the norm.
Also it's interesting you said what I said was just normal behaviour, because to me 'ugly duckling' syndrome is just normal behaviour and it's the envy, spite, self-absorption and range of emotions (including anger) that make four different. Mb we just have very different interpretations of the type :shrug:
Yes, I agree that the 3 wing would bring out the narcissistic traits more. I don't agree that it doesn't make sense that you think Fi base can't have those feelings. Se is about action. You don't even have to act on those feelings as a 4 with Fi and Se PoLR. If you don't have those negative feelings, it would surprise me if one was a 4. A type that tends towards modesty is a 9, not a 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous
That can be more attributed to 3 wing.Quote:
Here are the things I don't relate to (and perhaps several other SX 4s don't either):
- entitlement
- narcissism
In what way? A 4 is a type driven by envy. That surely can make one spiteful if you think someone has a better lot in life than you.Quote:
- spitefulness in the way it is described
You're putting words in the type description's mouth. Where does it say this or imply in any description that sx 4s lack empathy? I find 4s no matter what the subtype to be one of the more empathetic types.Quote:
- lack of empathy basically
Yes, 4s can be angry, but it doesn't say they show violent behavior or are ready to attack or confront. That's an 8. A 4 when you trigger their identity, shame, or envy issues may show their claws to you though. It's not uncommon. Even if they retreat from confrontation like a Se PoLR and hide out stewing in their negative emotions. Why they are doing it is the better question. With a 4, it's because you maybe didn't understand them.Quote:
- anger
- aggression (hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront).
In more damaged cases they can be. They are more of a shameless type of 4. I wouldn't say it's a hard rule. Sx 4s can be very nice too. ;)Quote:
- malicious
Probably seen more in 3 wingers but the competitive drive to be seen as superior especially in relation to their rivals is a driving force for them. Again it's envy. You need to understand that emotion and all it entails to understand why this isn't out of line with a 4. A 4 will strive to be unique and authentic to themselves in this pursuit as opposed to a 3. That's the difference.Quote:
- wanting to be superior
Yes this is just to say that sx 4s may be aware of anger in their personality more than sadness. I've already provided examples of sx 4s speaking to this quality.Quote:
- being "consciously aware" of their anger
Yes they can be demanding to fill the sense of lack. Not always, but it's not unthinkable.Quote:
- "demanding what is rightfully theirs"
@mrrrmaid addressed this one already, and I wholly agree with what she had to say.Quote:
- "They want to be special and significant in the eyes of their partner"
(mostly issue with significant in the last one, that sounds very 3._
The way you describe how you are seems more 9 to me. I'm not saying you're a 9, but have you looked at sx 9 if you have a problem with sx 4 descriptions? They can be confused with 4s. I don't want to take this away from andreasdevig's thread, and a lot of this discussion about sx 4 is doing that. I did find it interesting and couldn't help myself. :PQuote:
I am very shy, modest, nice, peaceful albeit - intense at times, emotional, i can indeed "bite" so to speak when hurt, but that anger isn't there because im entitled, it's there because i think I feel that im ugly and repulsive to the core (im not actually but, that's how it feels at times). It's not hatred because of some entitlement, it's hatred because i hate myself and all i can see in the other person's eyes is the same thing. I could go deeper into it and but needless to say im not comfortable with the predominant image of a SX 4 being forced onto me or super-imposed onto me. I don't really want to argue or be attacked about this, unless you wanted to do it non-aggressively.
Yes, that's true for 4s. The way you describe tying one self to another is more 9 though. 4s are more independent in their sense of self and seek to find the other who will redeem them from their flawed state. There's a hole of emptiness they are trying to fill. They aren't so much tied to their "special other half" as they idealize them. 9s merge, 4s long.Quote:
Type 4: "there's something horribly wrong with me, I am ugly inside" + SX: my meaning in everything, sense of self, self worth, and very life essence itself seems to be tied to the 'special other half': There's something horribly ugly at my core, but I must find someone who will love me regardless.
You take issue with Beatrice Chestnut's description but are there any other sx 4 descriptions you relate to? Surely there is one that resonated with you can speak to? They don't all paint a picture of an aggressive, angry type. The link I provided earlier by Riso Hudson isn't like that, for reference. I think it's probably the best one I've seen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymous
I'm confused. I don't associate wanting to be unique with 3s. That's 4.Quote:
Yeah, well, it depends on the way "significance" is stated. I associate an overt desire to be "unique" and to be "significant" with type 3 influence. I just cannot see that in myself...
This isn't 5. You're describing core 4 patterns but you say you don't relate to it?Quote:
5 being a head type, with it brings an unconscious feeling of being irredeemably and horribly broken inside, but not necessarily a conscious urge to be "unique, significant and compete." I don't care about those things. It's just...again not something I am and not something I ever have been...
Yes, you're right.Quote:
Being unique and noteworthy by playing on society's terms and "competing" and coming out the best again in the eyes of the status quo - that's 3.
4s don't care, imo. Of course, 4 with 3 influence can be like that.
I wouldn't be too sure. 4s will identify with the "ugly duckling" image more so, yes, especially so 4s, but 3s can definitely feel like an ugly duckling (All those stars and their plastic surgeries!) or at least worthless and their striving to be the best and accomplish much in their life is a strategy to address that feeling. You said right above this that 3s care about being the best in the eyes of the status quo, so why would they also care about uniqueness? You can't fit in the status quo and care about uniqueness at the same time. 4s are the ones who want to be recognized for their uniqueness, more 3 wings too.Quote:
Threes can very much care about being unique just in the way you described, but like I said, they want to be, but they don't necessarily already feel unique in the sense of being the "ugly duckling"! That's 4. Everything else...well I can see that as other types as well, including 3.
Again that doesn't sound exactly 4 to me. They will appreciate the ugliness more than a 3, yes, but they can often assume they are more special and real than others, so saying no one is deeper than anyone else strikes me as odd for a 4? 9s are a type more prone to universalizing sentiments while 4s very much appreciate individuality and people who are different.Quote:
4s are already nothing like anyone else, why bother competing? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that haha, just trying to provide I guess what they might be thinking.
Honestly though, I don't think anyone else is not "deep" it's just that people can act in shallow, uninteresting ways at times and what 4 wants more than anything is to see your 'ugliness' if you will, they just want you to be you. The 'authentic' you. No one is 'deeper' than anyone else...
Already been over this with mrrrmaid.Quote:
"special" and "significant" to me feels like...idk like something artificial. It's not natural. I can't relate to those words specifically. 4s hone their 'uniqueness' because they already feel ugly inside in the sense of being uglier than everyone else - and so "unique" in that way. "Special" and significant the way it is used in society usually, I associate with type 3. Special and significant in the eyes of the status quo.
You have to draw some lines about the subtypes too.Quote:
Chestnut copied from Naranjo as far as I can tell. Also, this is from word of mouth, I don't have actual proof yet - but apparently Naranjo took back his description of the SX 4 saying he didn't consider it as accurate anymore. :shrug:
Those authors may have re-stated the previous information on the enneagram types, perhaps not wanting to change much about them.
I think there can be many variations on a type, I am not going to box "Sx 4s" into anything yet. Except maybe the very basic core.
Yes, I'm glad you see how that connects now, but then how are those traits pretty human if you also acknowledge that a person driven by envy, which is a 4 above any type, shares it too? It means you see that it is specific to 4.Quote:
I could perhaps be wrong but maybe they...
1) copied from each other
and 2) possibly took the loudest example of an SX 4 since it was most obvious. Like I said, spitefulness and meanness are actually pretty human...I can certainly see that someone driven by envy could behave that way.
What if Se PoLR types were a part of those descriptions? You can't really say imo.Quote:
But the problem comes with Se PoLRs. Se PoLR descriptions explicitly state xIIs would not at all be into those things. At all.
But since not all SX4s would be Se PoLR or even the louder version of the type...they may have been omitted from these descriptions.
A 4 is still envious no matter what your Sociotype. It must be said they aren't angry and hateful all the time.Quote:
I know we are talking about types here but... honestly this just sounds normal. Not saying it is unrelated to type but I think sometimes people project very human things onto type. I think I would give Se PoLR 4s some leeway with that "envious and spiteful" stuff though.
That really isn't helpful to say that behavior in line with the type as she described is just "normal". She was showing a pretty clear 4 pattern in her description of herself. Other types would not react in that manner. The 3 wing does enhance the outwardness of it, yes.Quote:
I am not mean, I don't want to do something like that. Not judging you, it's just not something I would do.
It also sounds...normal. Perhaps you might get a little exasperated with me pointing this out but...after all the e-types are universal human themes/archetypes, haha.
Why do you think Sx 4s would go against their values or be cruel to others either? You seem to be reading more into the description than is there a lot of the time from my perspective. I don't mean that in a bad way but I just thought you may want to consider that. I'm just trying to make neutral observations.Quote:
I am not aggressive, using the description that I used for my last post. Unless I get hurt badly, which rarely happens, obviously. My heart has to be broken badly. Even then I wouldn't go against my values (Fi) or be cruel to someone (Se PoLR).
No, many people aren't really that in my experience. Have you seen a 9 act that way? Have those feelings? You really have to push a 9 especially 1 wing to become aggressive towards you. They have a hangup with getting angry. 4s not so much. You tick them off, question their identity, trigger their envy, and they will let their feelings dictate where they go, unfortunately.Quote:
Many people are aggressive, spiteful, vindictive, envious - imo most people are capable of these things...4-ishness or not. The thing with EIIs though is that they try their best to steer clear of those things. Of course extreme instances and trauma can drive any type into doing really anything, but generally speaking.
They may not have gotten it right. True. I still don't think Se PoLR is an adequate explanation for that description being wrong when others can relate to it in different ways too. I just think some clarity from another perspective of someone outside the type can be helpful too. Also please don't take my comparison of you to 9 as suggesting that is your type. I don't want to make that assumption when I have not seen enough and could be making more distinctions about the types than necessary, not that I don't think what I said is inaccurate. Just what you described about the type read that way to me, not that it describes you.Quote:
If we go by Naranjo description, the SO 4 would be me, even though I am not Social first. I just want to make clear I am definitely not the SX 4 description lol, and the social 4 is strikingly very much like me. It was wayyy too accurate. Except my issues are not tied to the social realm as intensely as they are to the SX realm. But in my demeanor, I am absolutely the SO 4 description and not the SX 4. Which is why I don't think they necessarily got the subtype right.
I said I have a hard time seeing Fi users as narcissistic in the way 4s are described perhaps because I feel like 'authenticity,' being 'natural' if you will, subdued, is pretty much part of what Delta quadra values and comes across as.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue
I don't really want to be attacked...
I had made that pretty clear.
The second manifestation of our PoLR is a complete aversion to force, aggression, conflict, violence, competition, and the whole idea of bending people and situations to get what one wants. This is where you get the “overly sensitive” aspect of our personalities. If someone says something in a way that is remotely confrontational, we retreat. If someone really wants to argue, we fall silent. If people are fighting, we will either try to settle the disagreement, get up and leave, or both. We will not “intrude on others' space,” whether physically or psychologically. We are virtually incapable of making anyone do anything or refusing a request. No matter how badly we may want something, if you flatly refuse, we are likely to back down, at least after a short while. EIIs do not make things happen – we prefer to wait for them to happen or let someone else take the lead. In those rare occasions where we try to be forceful, we become extremely uncomfortable and vulnerable. It's terrifying. We want everyone to get along, to share their thoughts in an accepting and peaceful discourse. We want everyone to “win” and leave unscarred, and since that seldom happens in an Se environment, we avoid such environments.Quote:
In what way? A 4 is a type driven by envy. That surely can make one spiteful if you think someone has a better lot in life than you.
You may be reading too much into my description. To make others suffer because you need to be 'superior' is my eyes is a petty reason, and there's never any good reason to hurt someone else or 'make them suffer'...Quote:
You're putting words in the type description's mouth. Where does it say this or imply in any description that sx 4s lack empathy? I find 4s no matter what the subtype to be one of the more empathetic types.
That's still lack of empathy.
Um, sure, I guess I did mention that before somewhere. Still nowhere close to the description though.Quote:
Yes, 4s can be angry, but it doesn't say they show violent behavior or are ready to attack or confront. That's an 8. A 4 when you trigger their identity, shame, or envy issues may show their claws to you though. It's not uncommon. Even if they retreat from confrontation like a Se PoLR and hide out stewing in their negative emotions. Why they are doing it is the better question. With a 4, it's because you maybe didn't understand them.
But it's not Se PoLR, I think that description makes it pretty clear...Quote:
Probably seen more in 3 wingers but the competitive drive to be seen as superior especially in relation to their rivals is a driving force for them. Again it's envy. You need to understand that emotion and all it entails to understand why this isn't out of line with a 4. A 4 will strive to be unique and authentic to themselves in this pursuit as opposed to a 3. That's the difference.
Not accounting for Se PoLRs again. I don't think I am like that.Quote:
Yes this is just to say that sx 4s may be aware of anger in their personality more than sadness. I've already provided examples of sx 4s speaking to this quality.
Idk, most of the conversations and descriptions I find I never relate to, maybe because like I said earlier, they don't take into account Se PoLR. But I can also see things a little differently.Quote:
Also, yeah, Se PoLRs don't want to argue, and something I have noticed is that some people are happy with basically steam-rolling the other person instead of just letting them be. They emerge 'victorious' publicly speaking, with their narrative predominant. Regardless of what others might or might not think; truth or reality doesn't matter, bending reality to your will - 'winning' matters. I despise it.
Doesn't mean I agree with it. But it's not in the best interests of my psychological health to make myself vulnerable to these things repeatedly. I just wanted to clarify some things in this post, that's why I responded...
This isn't a new thing to me either. What if you tried to see my descriptions from the 4 perspective? Or sx 4. Instead of 9...Quote:
The way you describe how you are seems more 9 to me. I'm not saying you're a 9, but have you looked at sx 9 if you have a problem with sx 4 descriptions? They can be confused with 4s. I don't want to take this away from andreasdevig's thread, and a lot of this discussion about sx 4 is doing that. I did find it interesting and couldn't help myself. :P
People can have their own way of interpreting things, as long as they provide a general explanation for it, it's fine, imo.
I am not sure what you mean with this one.Quote:
Yes, that's true for 4s. The way you describe tying one self to another is more 9 though.
I don't think I said anything that should contradict this...if anything what you quoted me saying was in line with this.Quote:
4s are more independent in their sense of self and seek to find the other who will redeem them from their flawed state. There's a hole of emptiness they are trying to fill. They aren't so much tied to their "special other half" as they idealize them. 9s merge, 4s long.
Yeah, there were a couple that I was okay with, but too lazy to look them up right now.Quote:
You take issue with Beatrice Chestnut's description but are there any other sx 4 descriptions you relate to? Surely there is one that resonated with you can speak to? They don't all paint a picture of an aggressive, angry type. The link I provided earlier by Riso Hudson isn't like that, for reference. I think it's probably the best one I've seen.
Yeah, as I mentioned in my reply to mrrrmaid...just forgetting about the enneagram completely...Quote:
I'm confused. I don't associate wanting to be unique with 3s. That's 4.
when I think of someone describing themselves as 'wanting to be unique' it comes across as tacky. Same for 'significant' and 'different' or whatever. ALL of those words I guess I associate with...tackiness. Not to say it's bad to want to be those things; but I honestly think that's a strange way to phrase the core of the 4. 4 has internalized this 'bad object' so much that the fact that they are different IS the ocean they swim in. They don't 'want' to be so much as they ARE.
I was injecting 5 into 4; not 5 by itself.Quote:
This isn't 5. You're describing core 4 patterns but you say you don't relate to it?
As for 4 patterns, hopefully some of my earlier replies cleared that up.
Yes, anybody can feel like an ugly duckling. The difference with core 4 is that is - again - the ocean they swim in. They are not receptive to anyone pointing out something positive about them, compliments etc. no they will INSIST there is something wrong with them. They WANT that 'ugly' image of them validated. Hence the 'self-frustrating' or 'masochistic' personality type.Quote:
I wouldn't be too sure. 4s will identify with the "ugly duckling" image more so, yes, especially so 4s, but 3s can definitely feel like an ugly duckling (All those stars and their plastic surgeries!) or at least worthless and their striving to be the best and accomplish much in their life is a strategy to address that feeling. You said right above this that 3s care about being the best in the eyes of the status quo, so why would they also care about uniqueness? You can't fit in the status quo and care about uniqueness at the same time. 4s are the ones who want to be recognized for their uniqueness, more 3 wings too.
Many other types may be at least able to see their good qualities, even if they feel bad about themselves - better than a 4.
I am glad if I don't sound like a 4 as much anymore :lol:Quote:
Again that doesn't sound exactly 4 to me. They will appreciate the ugliness more than a 3, yes, but they can often assume they are more special and real than others, so saying no one is deeper than anyone else strikes me as odd for a 4? 9s are a type more prone to universalizing sentiments while 4s very much appreciate individuality and people who are different.
I have been working on this.
Sure, but I don't agree with the pre-dominant image of SX 4 that is out there. That is conflicts with Se PoLR should be extremely obvious...and to me, saying 4s HAVE to be (basically non Se-PoLR things), implies Se PoLRs can't be SX 4s.Quote:
You have to draw some lines about the subtypes too.
Ah, I meant that all these '9 archetypes' are still human. I feel like people tend to get lost in their type identification and may not realize how it actually 'universalizes' so to speak. That others have a piece of that in them as well.Quote:
Yes, I'm glad you see how that connects now, but then how are those traits pretty human if you also acknowledge that a person driven by envy, which is a 4 above any type, shares it too? It means you see that it is specific to 4.
Sure, anything de-emphasizing the competitiveness, aggression, hostility, cruelty etc. could possibly be a more Se PoLR description of 4.Quote:
What if Se PoLR types were a part of those descriptions? You can't really say imo.
Sure. I don't think that means they are going to hurt others, though. As much or as badly as the description suggests...Quote:
A 4 is still envious no matter what your Sociotype. It must be said they aren't angry and hateful all the time.
I wouldn't do something like that; yet I think there are a lot of people who would be perfectly fine being mean in that way because they felt bad about themselves. In that sense, I was saying it sounds 'normal.' Most people can be rather 'cruel' (by that word I just mean things I would never imagine doing myself lol, but not necessarily cruel in the sense of horrible or anything like that...)Quote:
That really isn't helpful to say that behavior in line with the type as she described is just "normal". She was showing a pretty clear 4 pattern in her description of herself. Other types would not react in that manner. The 3 wing does enhance the outwardness of it, yes.
I think my reference to Se PoLR should it make it very clear why I find that the classic SX 4 description sounds 'cruel' and to me would be against my values for sure.Quote:
Why do you think Sx 4s would go against their values or be cruel to others either?
Se PoLRs still aren't going to behave in those overly aggressive ways, I think. The description makes that very clear.Quote:
No, many people aren't really that in my experience. Have you seen a 9 act that way? Have those feelings? You really have to push a 9 especially 1 wing to become aggressive towards you. They have a hangup with getting angry. 4s not so much. You tick them off, question their identity, trigger their envy, and they will let their feelings dictate where they go, unfortunately.
Yeah, I addressed this in my earlier posts too. I see most people as much more capable of being ‘mean’ by deriding someone, for instance, but I don’t do that and don’t really see myself doing that. In my eyes, most people are capable in acting in those ways if they feel 'envious' enough.Quote:
They may not have gotten it right. True. I still don't think Se PoLR is an adequate explanation for that description being wrong when others can relate to it in different ways too.
So yes, many people can relate to it, except for maybe the very, very sensitive Se PoLR :)
That's fine.Quote:
I just think some clarity from another perspective of someone outside the type can be helpful too. Also please don't take my comparison of you to 9 as suggesting that is your type. I don't want to make that assumption when I have not seen enough and could be making more distinctions about the types than necessary, not that I don't think what I said is inaccurate. Just what you described about the type read that way to me, not that it describes you.
The best? According to whom?Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
I agree, it's not... and I'd also add that it looks really ugly written down why it is not (by you). It's similar to the case of the guy who said he would stop cursing, yet all he ended up doing was teaching others curse words not to use - so in effect he was still talking dirty. It's as if you were trying to be an artist by teaching others what beauty is by telling them rules about what subjects to avoid - so essentially you still think of these subjects but believe by talking about them you distance yourself from them (Lacan). Except that this distantiation is still not beauty. Or another example: Christians teaching you not to sin, they tell you not be aggressive, not to say the word "cunt;" then, you inadvertently blurt it out once in a calm manner and they get really mad and jump at you: "quit saying the c word you little piece of shit!!" Who's aggressive, then?Quote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but it's beside the point, as I see it. Labeling people as 'beta males', to me, reeks of a sort of "Look at this beta male pussy ****** loser cuck. What a fucking ******. Look at this cuck.. Let us all point at him and call him names and make fun of him, for his inability to get laid. What a loser. Fag." Not extremely mature or civilized, if you ask me.
What's with this "Jordan Peterson," anyway? :DD I'm just becoming aware of him being talked about and mentioned a lot. It's like there was a trend or something...Quote:
Originally Posted by Olimpia
Naaa, I meant "beta male" more loosely and if you noticed I've also added the "parameter" "extroverted." So you can expect less of the stereotypical "beta male" qualities with an "extroverted beta male." Actually, for me "beta" was just a shorthand for saying not a leader type and not ultrasocial. I'm not seeing the Sx-dom qualities you mentioned, though.
It can result in that... if the rest of their tritype doesn't negate that.Quote:
4w5 can be Social first, which results in an "ambiverted" focus/outlook.
Ni does tend to exclude information but "helpfulness" as you use it, depends on what your purposes are. If it is about Fe, your subjective perception of group needs, harmony, then it may not benefit you to introduce more variables to (your use of) the theory. That's why I wrote you wouldn't want more Ne use.Quote:
It is not a matter of not comprehending the "dots", but merely not finding them helpful. :p I find it makes matters too convoluted.
Manson: to me she looks like a very healthy E2 that has integrated 4ish qualities. E2 is also an optimistic, assertive, her power is backed by the 8 disintegration point. I've took a glance of the first two of the interviews and to me she doesn't look like aggressive at all, instead a very nice, optimistic, empathic person. So/Sp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue
Li: watched two brief interviews (that duckduckgo returned), not the best ones since she is not interacting, no sudden, potentially embarrassing questions to catch her off guard. But, looking at her facial reactions, she appears to be a female version of my male INTJ So/Sx 5w4 childhood pal. If you look at her brows, she has this aggressive, yet sneaky, somewhat conforming, conceding look to her. She says in the latter when talking about garment choice that she'd walk outside naked rather, yet you often see her face hidden behind shades. Took a glance at the music video of "Hard Rain," there she looks at lot softer but of course the musical and cinematographic style is pop, mainstream. So yeah, sublimating the intimate into the social. 5w4s (by and large) are more aggressive than 4w5s.
As for Tilda..., I believe, going back to that Late Show clip, her quip at Steven (5:24-5:35) is revealing: "And I come to Manhattan and it's all very sparkly and I get a velvet jacket and I sit down with you - this is high brow for me, believe me, where I live it's er, yeah, underground low." This is, of course, to deflect Steven's criticism of the premeditatednesss of her arty image, but here she is able to put aside the expectation of the show and answer by breaking the 4th wall: she may be implying that she has these looks only to fit in with the big city culture, as well as the show. She is still aware of the villager standards and she is not willing to pretend that her background didn't matter, that now that her fame rose, she perfectly fit in with this glitzy world. Social firsts may want to fit in more, pretending that they always had been "born for the high life." Tilda's modesty contrasts her looks, hence I think she's more "creative" about her image, she conforms to expectations but that's not her main priority.
... nnnnot quite (!). Point out at the first person you know who likes stuck up people. Honestly, is there anyone who likes elitists? That is, the elitists, who may not even accept them in their exclusive niche? That's E3w4 you're talking about.Quote:
Yes, that's the attraction to an elitist group.
Tritype wouldn't really "negate" anything. The stacking remains as a big part of the person's value system. (That's how people of compatible stackings can feel camaraderie even with people from the opposite Quadra, or with incompatible stackings, can feel a bit off with people of the same Quadra in certain areas).Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
Someone whose values encompass SO/SX will by default have an outlook that is quite social and open and light, and even if the individual is 4-5-9 tritype, they will have that focus. So they will alternate between high introspection and especially if average to unhealthy, isolation, but they will also move to the social sphere, trying to communicate their findings and insights to others in an engaging way, so it will be a back forth between the two modes. Yes, it is a contradictory combination, which can be stressful, but so it is. 3-7-8 Sp/Sx would have a similar dynamic, albeit a bit different obviously.
Me, of course. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Neokortex
"I agree, it's not... and I'd also add that it looks really ugly written down why it is not (by you). It's similar to the case of the guy who said he would stop cursing, yet all he ended up doing was teaching others curse words not to use - so in effect he was still talking dirty. It's as if you were trying to be an artist by teaching others what beauty is by telling them rules about what subjects to avoid - so essentially you still think of these subjects but believe by talking about them you distance yourself from them (Lacan). Except that this distantiation is still not beauty. Or another example: Christians teaching you not to sin, they tell you not be aggressive, not to say the word "cunt;" then, you inadvertently blurt it out once in a calm manner and they get really mad and jump at you: "quit saying the c word you little piece of shit!!" Who's aggressive, then?"
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to say. I wasn't calling anybody any names. I was just criticizing those who do. But yeah, I am perhaps oversensitive about these words and terms. It's just a bit tiresome to me, frankly, to hear 'underdogs', unpopular people, soft people, people who can't get laid, etc. being attacked and called names ('beta males', 'pussies', 'cucks', etc.). And it's usually men who get called these names too, so it shows inequality - that men are expected to do and be things that women are not expected to. And yes, I know that women, too, are expected to do/be things that men are not expected to. There's inequality directed at both genders.
And yeah, no, I don't think I am a 9. One of the reasons I was avoiding responding is because I am not fond of attacks/confrontations. Not your fault, you are being yourself, but I don't want to be run over, and with what I am saying - a couple times at least - twisted. To me it feels like being forced into accepting something I don't actually. Like I said before, there is no need to force yourself to fit into whatever description; it should fit comfortably, otherwise just look at what does make sense if the whole thing clearly doesn't.Quote:
The way you describe how you are seems more 9 to me. I'm not saying you're a 9, but have you looked at sx 9 if you have a problem with sx 4 descriptions? They can be confused with 4s. I don't want to take this away from andreasdevig's thread, and a lot of this discussion about sx 4 is doing that. I did find it interesting and couldn't help myself.
Of course, feel free to examine core 9 for me, lol, but I think people who know me would probably agree with SX and 4, but definitely not with 'SX 4' :P
Of course I have 'negative feelings' lol. But I am not narcissistic, not even remotely so.Quote:
Yes, I agree that the 3 wing would bring out the narcissistic traits more. I don't agree that it doesn't make sense that you think Fi base can't have those feelings. Se is about action. You don't even have to act on those feelings as a 4 with Fi and Se PoLR. If you don't have those negative feelings, it would surprise me if one was a 4. A type that tends towards modesty is a 9, not a 4.
And no, I don't agree with your last statement...sounds like you are projecting the Beta quadra onto it. I don't like over-the-top things, at all, narcissism being one of them. Comes across as kitschy and unnatural and weird.
No offense, of course, but that's how I feel about it.
I am not sure if you are just reading things into it to make them sound different...and yeah I do have a 9 fix, so I am sure that's part of that, but it was a very general SX description, not really 9-ish. The last part was specifically 'SX 4' (the other two: '4' + 'SX').Quote:
Yes, that's true for 4s. The way you describe tying one self to another is more 9 though. 4s are more independent in their sense of self and seek to find the other who will redeem them from their flawed state. There's a hole of emptiness they are trying to fill. They aren't so much tied to their "special other half" as they idealize them. 9s merge, 4s long.
Here's one, though I am not entirely sure what they mean. I will just tell you my interpretation of it...Quote:
You take issue with Beatrice Chestnut's description but are there any other sx 4 descriptions you relate to? Surely there is one that resonated with you can speak to? They don't all paint a picture of an aggressive, angry type. The link I provided earlier by Riso Hudson isn't like that, for reference. I think it's probably the best one I've seen.
It's still over-the-top, but I was thinking about it, and wondering if this is what it meant...Quote:
SX 4: Double nudity, open hole, bruised and exposed
"double nudity" in the sense of being vulnerable not just in the SX way, but in the sense of being wounded as well. I guess the rest of that description plays off of that.
Oh, so this IS the Riso-Hudson one. I don't entirely mind this one, will go through it bit by bit...
Yeah, so, though I do relate to it, I have a couple of issues with this one:Quote:
Sexual Fours: Infatuation (Ichazo's "Competition")
Sexual Fours focus their envy and hypersensitivity in their intimate relationships. They are perhaps the most emotionally intense type of the Enneagram, which is both their gift and their potential downfall. They possess both a capacity and a desire for profound intimacy, and they derive tremendous insight into human nature through the ups and downs of their romantic lives.
1) I have had my own issues that I am hesitant to relate to the enneagram, because I have mostly lived in the 'unhealthy levels' for most of my life, and I don't think that's how most 4s are, of course. So would my intensity simply be a by-product of that unhealth, or actually 4? Probably both, but I don't want to muddy the waters, so I keep the issues I think don't have much to do with the enneagram, out of this entire topic.
2) It also makes it sound like SX 4s are the only ones who have a capacity for 'great intimacy,' or that maybe they are more capable, better at it...which doesn't make sense. Nor are they the most 'intense' necessarily. They can show their scars very early on in the ('mating') process, but I honestly think all SX types are very, very intense. In a good way :)
Yeah, this is true.Quote:
They have a sultry, sullen quality that can be attractive and mysterious, or at times, off-putting to others. Sexual Fours pour their energy and attention into the object of their affection, often becoming infatuated or even obsessed, sometimes after only one meeting. Sexual chemistry triggers their powerful imaginations, leading them to create enormous expectations of potential partners.
Yeah, the striked out one, I don't really understand. I don't compete with my partner. I don't compete, period. Lemme grab that Se PoLR description again...Quote:
Sexual Fours tend to be drawn to people who possess qualities and talents that they believe they lack. They want to complete themselves by associating or merging with the valued other. But this almost never works, so they may also end up envying and resenting their romantic partner for unintentionally reminding them of what they feel they are missing. In any case, Sexual Fours go through tremendous shifts of feeling about their loved ones—everything from idolization to unbridled hatred. Generally speaking, this type is aware of these feelings, including the dark ones, and finds ways to express them, sometimes in self-destructive ways.
I know I have used this several times now, but it is so me, I cannot help emphasizing it in context of what I am trying to explain. Someone like this ^ is not fond of any sort of meanness, competition, aggression - not just literal! It should be obvious that this is psychological too. Psychological aggression, force of any kind - even a little bit! Being mean or spiteful is part of 'competitiveness' and again this type of person will steer clear of that.Quote:
The second manifestation of our PoLR is a complete aversion to force, aggression, conflict, violence, competition, and the whole idea of bending people and situations to get what one wants. This is where you get the “overly sensitive” aspect of our personalities. If someone says something in a way that is remotely confrontational, we retreat. If someone really wants to argue, we fall silent. If people are fighting, we will either try to settle the disagreement, get up and leave, or both. We will not “intrude on others' space,” whether physically or psychologically. We are virtually incapable of making anyone do anything or refusing a request. No matter how badly we may want something, if you flatly refuse, we are likely to back down, at least after a short while. EIIs do not make things happen – we prefer to wait for them to happen or let someone else take the lead. In those rare occasions where we try to be forceful, we become extremely uncomfortable and vulnerable. It's terrifying. We want everyone to get along, to share their thoughts in an accepting and peaceful discourse. We want everyone to “win” and leave unscarred, and since that seldom happens in an Se environment, we avoid such environments.
No matter what type you are on the enneagram, if you are Se PoLR, those things should be true of you.
As for 'unbridled hatred,' again I don't want to conflate my lower health levels, or my own unique struggles, with a personality type...so I wouldn't say 'unbridled.' Some hatred, sure. But it's like, it's kind of hard to not at least somewhat hate someone who make yourself vulnerable to in the SX way - which I mean, SX firsts do all the time, doesn't even have to be a romantic thing, it's just what they are like - and they hurt you. That hurts worse than anything else. So then, of course there would be some hatred. I dunno if that's 4 or if it's just...human.
I kind of like this one as well:
Sources for SX 4 descriptions:Quote:
Intimate Fours
• Intimate Fours love others in a deep way, and possess a sensitive, complex, poetic intelligence about matters of the heart
• This is a highly romantic subtype, visible in the realms of romantic poetry, the troubadour tradition and popular music about love, especially in the lyrics of confessional singers
Obviously, I am not literally a confessional singer or anything like that, but I get the archetype he is trying to create here, and I can see it.
• Often stay friends with ex-lovers
• A focus on aesthetics; some Intimate Fours are tasteful, flashy dressers
Absolutely not flashy. Never going to happen. Tasteful, yes.
• Can harbor a fantasy of perfect union, a redemptive love that will heal the wound of being an unwanted outsider
• Prone to jealousy and may be competitive in close relationships as well as generally; can feel like there is only so much love to go around
Striking out that part, everything else is true for me.
• Want to be Number One in their beloved’s heart or the only person their partner has ever loved; could be jealous of their partner’s past relationships
• A stronger connection to Two
I can see that I guess, but a couple of these might just be things people can project whatever they want, onto. Including this one.
• May be surprised to discover that their beloved has different needs; they assume mutuality of purpose and are unprepared to negotiate
Lol, I don't understand this. "Might be SURPRISED their beloved has different needs" - why would anybody be surprised by that, haha?
• Also prone to professional envy and try to best others at work
Absolutely not.
• May be unable to enjoy their successes without demeaning the achievements of others
Absolutely not.
• Intimate Fours can resemble Eights just as romantic Intimate Eights can resemble Fours
Nope, not really.
• Can believe that without someone to love they are nothing and life is not worth living
• When in love, images of their partner fill the Four’s awareness and attention. The beloved is a muse, necessary to connect Fours to their own life force
• May take no responsibility for their life until Mr. or Ms. Right comes along
• There can be a willful immaturity to this stance, a stubborn refusal to face facts no matter what the practical costs
Sounds more like SP last, though.
• Can be love addicts who lack the memory of being loved and believe they are condemned to search the world for something or someone to fill them up
• Some Intimate Fours act markedly seductive to stave off being rejected
nope
• May engineer rejection by picking unavailable or inappropriate people to become infatuated with
...yes.
• A few have ambiguous, confused or exaggerated sexual identities or a chronic identity crisis around their sexuality
Not really. Doesn't sound specific to a type, anyway...
The enneagram universe
Riso and Hudson
Tom Condon
I can see that point. For me, I can feel negative feelings towards people. You might never know it, though. For instance, if I were to see a happy couple walking in the park, holding hands, it can be hard for me to feel happy for them. It might be easier for me to feel lonely and sad, because it reminds me of what I don't have in my life. But, again, you might not know it. I try to keep my feelings inside, as I don't want to be the "self-absorbed complainer" and I don't want to hurt people's feelings. I try my best to be soft-spoken and un-aggressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue
Because of my jealous and possessive nature, I, admittedly, have a fetish for lonely/solitary women (women who don't have/had a lot of friends or lovers). Because the more friends/lovers a woman has/had, the less special I would feel I am to her. It's also harder for me to relate to and feel similarity to someone who's very 'socially/sexually/romantically successful'.
Thoughts like "Everyone else gets to have intimacy. Why can't I have it." or "Other people gets to release their art and be somewhat famous. I have to do that too." can go through my mind. But there can also be another part of me that comes in and says "But I guess we all have our struggles. Some people can't walk, some people can't see, some people can't hear, some people have AIDs, etc." Maybe this is a conflict between the strong 4 in my tritype and the strong 9 in my tritype. (??). I really don't know.
"No, many people aren't really that in my experience. Have you seen a 9 act that way? Have those feelings? You really have to push a 9 especially 1 wing to become aggressive towards you. They have a hangup with getting angry. 4s not so much. You tick them off, question their identity, trigger their envy, and they will let their feelings dictate where they go, unfortunately."
I relate to the bolded parts. I dislike it if people call me normal/mainstream, treat others better than me, etc. But, in my honest opinion, I'm not hostile, and I'm certainly not aggressive. (Sometimes/often times I may even be completely passive, even though my feelings have gotten hurt). Not only does it come very unnaturally to me to be aggressive/loud/violent, but I also un-value it. I would feel very bad about myself if I were to act that way. And so I try not to (and it's not very hard, since I'm naturally a very shy and gentle person), because I absolutely can't stand it when others act that way (unless they had a really good/fair reason to act that way, obviously).
Perhaps because my feelings get hurt so easily, I try to be extra-careful to not hurt others's feelings.
But perhaps I'm biased. There was an instance where a platonic internet friend of mine said/did something. It made me feel jealous/envious. And I was afraid to be honest/direct, so my words came out wrong. And so my words sounded like I meant something more cruel than I actually meant. And she took it very badly and felt really upset and hurt. And I felt very upset and hurt by her behavior as well. But I tried (I'd like to think) to be as soft-spoken and diplomatic as I could be.
It is OK to not identify as Sx or 4.
I'm sorry to read that you find it tiresome to hear all those kinds of people being attacked and called names but like you say you wasn't calling anybody names, I am mirroring you in that respect: I wasn't attacking anybody either. I think a lot of this inequality can be put down to biological evolution. At less civil, less organized places (back of beyond), "jus naturale" rules apply, so instead of written laws, the stronger, braver males band together and they do what they think is a noble goal: protect the "innocent." This leads to inequality, however, since their collective strength affords them more women, whereas the ones they are protecting others from become marginalized, disenfranchised, atrophied throughout generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
I'm following the "Oceanmoonshine's" (or something) descriptions, that is, I designate an "instinct" to each type in the tritype. In that way I don't treat the "stackings" as "instincts" but as focalizers. By and large you can say that a 4w5 so/sp is ambiverted but when typing someone you really have to figure out the priority of their values. You thought Tilda Swinton was a social 4 and at first glance she does seem to be superficially invested in giving the 4 look but at the same time that 4 can stand in more positions in the tritype and that defines priority. If Tilda was a tertiary 4, then her 4ishness was only a tool for her other, deeper motivations. Out of their configuration does one overall "instinct" and "main type" emerge. In my case it's "Sx/Sp 6" - but my 6 is a "countertype" in the sense that I have both 9 and 3 phases at differing intervals. 6 for me is second nature but, ultimately, only a means to an end. Within this internal prioritization do "instincts"/focalizers have a role in what or what doesn't get negated or "cancelled out" from the general qualities of a "type."Quote:
Originally Posted by Olimpia
So according to your (borrowed) definition, my so/sp 4w3 would be more than ambiverted and tritype "wouldn't negate it," yet I'm afraid you're more than a wee bit off the mark there. While I have bursts of extroversion, my 4 qualities are visible, at the most, through my E6 reasoning. And yes, in that way no one can really identify with all the enlisted qualities of a certain (sub)type because everyone is a tritypal mishmash.
Moreover, and I'm writing from experience, no one has only just one "flow." Or more precisely, everyone has a "flow" but that oscillates between benevolent and malicious, earnest and spiteful attitudes. When saying someone is So/Sx, you refer to a certain "complex" of traits. The more typical So/Sxes are easily recognizable, yet some traits of the "So/Sx" are also noticeable with ENTPs or ENFPs, even if they apparently are not the lowest on Sp (I have examples). This is where the "ranges" come in.
The bolded part: treating "instincts" as focalizers helps understand what and how is communicated when an otherwise withdrawn person reenters the social. Looking at Tilda, I find that she's more assertive with emotions instead of "head type" or "gut type" matters. She does it in a British/intuitive type way, of course, unlike the tantrum that ones with a 4 + 8 would throw. In that sense, she's more social (adaptive) on gut/head, whereas she's more Sx (dominant, assertive) in the heart.
You may have an So/Sx on your 5 but overall, in your current YT videos, I see you as a higher range So/Sp. Hence, the Si-dom remark.
@andreasdevig this is not to say you are mistyped or anything, but I was just curious...
How do you feel about Se suggestive for you, compared to Se PoLR (since they are both 1D)?
Why do you ask? :) Do you see me as Se Suggestive?Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusRose
To answer your question, I read a description, and it does sound relatable (as does Se PoLR, too, of course). And perhaps (perhaps) I could see Ni-base for myself (or Si-base, for that matter), but it comes coupled with either Te or Fe, and I can't really see those functions/elements in myself.
I was curious :content:Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig
Here's an Se PoLR description:
Te PoLR:Quote:
Extroverted sensing or “Se” is responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space, territory, power and control. It observes outward appearances, estimates and analyzes whether forces are in alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve purposes. Se understands territory (who has acquired what) and physical aggression. It is also the function of contact and apprehension of qualia, constant physical traits of objects. In EIIs, Se is weak and subdued.
Se will manifest in roughly two ways in an EII: The first is our virtual obliviousness to our surroundings. Although we tend to be very organized people and feel like our thoughts are fairly organized too, they are quick to leap from one subject to another thanks to Ne, and we often feel overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information running through our minds. EIIs have a tendency to “space out.” We will leave personal belongings in places and fail to notice changes in our environment. We are frequently lost in our own thoughts and can tune out external reality, even in the middle of something like driving or a conversation. This has the potential of causing major problems. More than once I have had to ask someone, “I’m sorry, what were you saying?” only to have them become frustrated at having to repeat themselves and then assuming that I just don’t care about what they have to say, which is usually a grossly incorrect assumption. Personally, I have to sort of shift my focus in order to take in stuff going on around me, but it’s not long until something I see propels me into thought and I am lost again. I also have a hard time with directions, so getting physically lost is not a difficult feat either. I also don’t feel a need to maintain eye contact with people – I can listen and know what they’re saying and its emotional context without measuring all their body language and facial expression. Of course, that varies from situation to situation. In any case, I would like to let everyone out there know that it’s not because we don’t value what you have to say and you shouldn’t take it personally. I am being honest when I say that I always mean well – always. Sometimes, negative emotions (mostly anger, not sadness) given off by someone are so strong that I can’t bear to look at them.
The second manifestation of our PoLR is a complete aversion to force, aggression, conflict, violence, competition, and the whole idea of bending people and situations to get what one wants. This is where you get the “overly sensitive” aspect of our personalities. If someone says something in a way that is remotely confrontational, we retreat. If someone really wants to argue, we fall silent. If people are fighting, we will either try to settle the disagreement, get up and leave, or both. We will not “intrude on others’ space,” whether physically or psychologically. We are virtually incapable of making anyone do anything or refusing a request. No matter how badly we may want something, if you flatly refuse, we are likely to back down, at least after a short while. EIIs do not make things happen – we prefer to wait for them to happen or let someone else take the lead. In those rare occasions where we try to be forceful, we become extremely uncomfortable and vulnerable. It’s terrifying. We want everyone to get along, to share their thoughts in an accepting and peaceful discourse. We want everyone to “win” and leave unscarred, and since that seldom happens in an Se environment, we avoid such environments.
People with strong Se are able to weigh out how much “force” is being applied and to what effect. EIIs simply cannot do this. We interpret most forms of criticism as personal assaults on our character which are meant to demonstrate a disapproval of some integral part of our self-concept. We sometimes have trouble differentiating between a sarcastic jab and an insult because we are inclined to think that even negative comments directed toward someone as a joke are still implying some kind of honest criticism underneath the supposed lightheartedness. In short, we can take lots of things personally unless given some kind of clear signal (spoken or otherwise) that we aren’t actually being attacked.
Lol while looking for the description, I found this. It's a humorous way to depict Te PoLR.
Te PoLR description:
This is so true! I think I had an IEI professor once, at least Beta NF seems to fit him quite well...Quote:
SEI and IEI (Te PoLR) feel very uncomfortable in a situation that forces them to admit:
- That they do not have the necessary knowledge and skills;
- They do not know that in fact they are not able to display an active business attitude;
- They do not understand the rules of management, principles of operation;
- They do not understand the fitness of things, i.e. how external events are connected with things happening around them;
- They do not know how to optimize, calculate efficiency.
Anyways, so he gave us all a self-quiz to determine what sort of Psychologists'/counsellors' ideas we were aligned with personally. I was going through it, and then at the results section I thought they had mixed up Jung and someone else...I looked into it again, just to make sure, and it seemed like that was very possible. I pointed this out to him through email, to which he did not respond. When I broached the topic with him in person (since it seemed like he gave this quiz to students possibly every class he had...so I thought perhaps this would be important), he said he "hadn't looked into it yet" while seeming kind of wary and/or insecure. I found that very strange because all you would need to do is google and check...so I wonder if Te PoLR (and to some extent role, perhaps) is kind of like pretending evidence that might be right in front of you...does not exist. Or not wanting to look into the evidence to begin with.
I could not find as good of a description for Te PoLR, but yeah...
Which one of those feels more like a painful function to you?
Intuitively, I want to say Se. Te can be painful too. I can feel insecure, in terms of feeling like I don't have the facts that I should, and so on and so forth. I dislike being proven wrong, and so on and so forth. I guess that's human, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by VenusRose
I could never work in a facts-oriented job. I don't think I would willfully ignore facts, though, frankly.
I would assume Se PoLR would manifest, partly, (in me) as a feeling like I'm not what society says a "real man" should be. So this can cause me to feel insecure. Perhaps this is human, too, though, I don't know. But I often feel like I'm not what society deems an acceptable man, or what society says that women are supposedly attracted to (dominance, strength, assertiveness, etc.). Perhaps a lot of men feel this way. I really don't know. I can't say. I can only speak for myself. But yeah, it's a painful feeling, of feeling inferior, weak, etc. But I guess it doesn't come up all that often, since I don't tend to seek out these kinds of environments, I suppose.
I tend to be extremely careful with my words and actions and what not, so as not to hurt people's feelings and what not. I never want to initiate force (violence, yelling, etc.). I would feel very bad about myself if I did. I absolutely cannot stand aggressive, violent or loud people.
What about yourself? I assume Se feels more painful to you?
Yes, I agree for myself, with the quote I posted about Se vulnerable. Te has never really been a 'painful' spot for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by andreasdevig