Page 27 of 31 FirstFirst ... 17232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,080 of 1205

Thread: Possible Enneagram types of forum members

  1. #1041
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    I am speaking out of personal experience with two people who are sexually abusive and manipulative (a man and a woman), both of whom share the personality traits I mentioned in my last post. I am also observing a general trend within society.

    Based on posts you've left elsewhere, you seem to think that nerdy, overweight gamers, Budweizer dudebros, and flamboyant, crude trolls who crack jokes about women online are somehow "creepy" and "threatening". However, most of these men are sexually inexperienced and will lack the charisma to seduce let alone coerce a woman who is not making clear advances towards them. So a man whose hobbies are anime, Bach, CoD and playing pranks on feminists is probably not going to rape you.

    The sort of man you should be worried about is the opposite: a man who seems very smooth, suave, charming and socially connected. Think of a high powered, hard-working manager who seems to be put together, someone charismatic, respected in elite society, who makes all the right noises about politics. This might seem counter-intuitive, but the truth is that people who are in a position of high status are less likely to value you as an individual, and will often have a dark, disturbing side that they hide from the world. Look at Harvey Weinstein, Woody Allen, Ben Affleck, etc. They are all men who have donated money to "women's rights" groups and are vocal supporters of a left-wing political agenda. Yet they are abusers. So be careful not to judge someone as good/bad based on the superficial image they present in public. You seem to place an inordinate emphasis upon someone's prestige within society when making ethical judgements.

    I hope you will take this on board, especially as sexual harassment seems to be a significant fear of yours.
    I dunno this is all very interesting but what I find interesting is how, although the way you talk, about your wanted or supposed desired activities with those of the opposite sex, yet really you are saying here you're not a threat, because you're a nerd/not socially adjusted etc. Yeah that's interesting but what's more interesting is that, despite your talk, is that, each time, you seem to put women on a pedestal. That's good but just make sure it's the right woman IMO. For instance, how do you know Chae isn't an abuser? She's made sexually inappropriate comments to me before. Anyway i'm not taking sides, but it just seems a victim mentality is ingrained in you and not just from a socionics perspective. Maybe you need to chill or something, or take up weights? I dunno.

    It's like a strange way of being creepy to women yet being afraid of them. But, it's OK IMO, I think this sort of attitude will pass. I'd say you should focus on other activities, like, take up going to the gym or something. Meeting women will happen indirectly when you take the focus off the particular type of obsession you have IMO. Yeah that was the real point amongst multiple strange attitudes in your post, just chill out, take up some other hobbies that young men should be doing, and it will or should take your mind off being so sensitive and creepy.

    Just trying to help.

  2. #1042
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,989
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac View Post
    I dunno this is all very interesting but what I find interesting is how, although the way you talk, about your wanted or supposed desired activities with those of the opposite sex, yet really you are saying here you're not a threat, because you're a nerd/not socially adjusted etc. Yeah that's interesting but what's more interesting is that, despite your talk, is that, each time, you seem to put women on a pedestal. That's good but just make sure it's the right woman IMO. For instance, how do you know Chae isn't an abuser? She's made sexually inappropriate comments to me before. Anyway i'm not taking sides, but it just seems a victim mentality is ingrained in you and not just from a socionics perspective. Maybe you need to chill or something, or take up weights? I dunno.
    I am 6'2, 190lb and learning Gracie jujitsu. I would bet a lot of money that I am in better shape than you right now. Oh and just this evening, I hit on five French women, and one Turkish woman, and got three numbers. I am guaranteed to meet at least two of those three girls tomorrow. That is a 50% success rate, and on a Tuesday evening! - the worst night for dating. Most men would envy half of what I can achieve without trying. No doubt, a bottom feeder such as yourself would give his left hand to be where I am in life, and yet, I am only beginning to rise and will rise inexorably.

    You are just another little fly for me to swat, and I do enjoy doing it...again, and again, and again.

    Quote Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac View Post
    It's like a strange way of being creepy to women yet being afraid of them. But, it's OK IMO, I think this sort of attitude will pass. I'd say you should focus on other activities, like, take up going to the gym or something. Meeting women will happen indirectly when you take the focus off the particular type of obsession you have IMO. Yeah that was the real point amongst multiple strange attitudes in your post, just chill out, take up some other hobbies that young men should be doing, and it will or should take your mind off being so sensitive and creepy.
    My love is to be obsessed, to be passionate and consume myself within the grandeur of a pure, raw yet serene desire. You couldn't even taste a drop of what I can make real, and even if you could, it would drive you mad. I don't care. You are just another easily triggered puritanical bore who hopes that politeness will get him laid. What a cuck!

    Good luck to you.

  3. #1043
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    1,134
    Mentioned
    46 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cuivienen View Post
    I am 6'2, 190lb and learning Gracie jujitsu. I would bet a lot of money that I am in better shape than you right now. Oh and just this evening, I hit on five French women, and one Turkish woman, and got three numbers. I am guaranteed to meet at least two of those three girls tomorrow. That is a 50% success rate, and on a Tuesday evening! - the worst night for dating. Most men would envy half of what I can achieve without trying. No doubt, a bottom feeder such as yourself would give his left hand to be where I am in life, and yet, I am only beginning to rise and will rise inexorably.

    You are just another little fly for me to swat, and I do enjoy doing it...again, and again, and again.



    My love is to be obsessed, to be passionate and consume myself within the grandeur of a pure, raw yet serene desire. You couldn't even taste a drop of what I can make real, and even if you could, it would drive you mad. I don't care. You are just another easily triggered puritanical bore who hopes that politeness will get him laid. What a cuck!

    Good luck to you.
    Ah, so you are just a creepy weirdo then (who knows what you mean by hitting on so many Turkish women since you say you have to move to America to get a date.) All the best.

  4. #1044
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,989
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by at sirac son of sirac View Post
    Ah, so you are just a creepy weirdo then (who knows what you mean by hitting on so many Turkish women since you say you have to move to America to get a date.) All the best.
    You are the most pusillanimous, contrived virtue signaler on this forum, and my god, there is some stiff competition for that honor.

    In the odd chance that you ever managed to achieve sexual arousal, I fear the experience would so traumatize you that you'd decide to undergo gender reassignment surgery. What a miserable creature you are.

  5. #1045
    Tommy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    TIM
    SLI-0 D sx/sp
    Posts
    2,995
    Mentioned
    342 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    yeah totally, I think of Ne as viewing the world in terms of a limitless field of these little circles, like each person is just one walking circle which is like a cell that makes up a bigger circle and it spirals into the DNA structure of the universe itself, whereas Ti Ni is like viewing everything from the point of view of that one circle rather than all possible circles. they get really locked into their perspective. Hamlet likes to generate circles for people to adopt and sort of implies the existence of a multiplicity of circles but never quite consciously recognizes it (love other people, but not because we're all one organism--becomes a declarative morality where "one circle" is the correct one not part of a larger truth, but "loving other people" is derived precisely from this truth, otherwise why love people if we aren't in some way connected, etc), Hamlet is like right on that boundary of recognizing the broader perspective which I think is the source of a lot of their "to be or not to be" angst. I think this is the source of there being different versions of Christianity for example. that Ni Ti formulation is different than a Ne Fi version but they're fundamentally derived from the same reality, they are just different individual perspectives
    EIEs have also good grasp of Ne, but its unvalued. Though, they use it by default too. In this sense I must distinct bright EIEs that show me ways that I've never considered myself or simply a very different perspective. In this sense I value their opinion a lot. Without them I wouldnt have a very important piece of reality that increases understanding, diversity of opinions and perspective. I find the intellect, advice,opinion, attitude of some EIEs as very enlighting, though, not in the most usual way. Just as somebody else said in here once, conflictors can shine like diamonds.

    I was just thinking in the wisdom of lovely Guava.

  6. #1046
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    yeah, like Nietzsche

  7. #1047
    stare into me flames's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    As seen on T.V.
    TIM
    E I E I OOOOO Sx/So
    Posts
    2,294
    Mentioned
    280 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Crystal View Post
    EIEs have also good grasp of Ne, but its unvalued. Though, they use it by default too. In this sense I must distinct bright EIEs that show me ways that I've never considered myself or simply a very different perspective. In this sense I value their opinion a lot. Without them I wouldnt have a very important piece of reality that increases understanding, diversity of opinions and perspective. I find the intellect, advice,opinion, attitude of some EIEs as very enlighting, though, not in the most usual way. Just as somebody else said in here once, conflictors can shine like diamonds.

    I was just thinking in the wisdom of lovely Guava.
    Very true! I’ve found LIIs to be very helpful for me and have even found some attractive (both platonically or otherwise), even if things never quite work out between us. Of course there are also some that repulse me immediately. But conflictors can be very attractive or helpful, yes.
    And I'm what you desire, like a siren in the night



    Quote Originally Posted by Starfall
    Everyone, pls give Bled some likes. He craves the likes much like Suedehead craves the cock.
    7w6 2w3 8w9 - The Free Spirit

  8. #1048
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,312
    Mentioned
    970 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Issue 1: Making ungrounded leaps of theory
    This issue is actually not new, but it seems to be growing. I first observed this 10+ years ago: people – via articles, presentations, and even books – saying that the wings do this or the arrows do that, or that subtypes are like this. Although new theory is actually desirable, ungrounded theory is not, and neither is theory stated as an absolute rather than as a speculation.

    An example: An Enneagram teacher saying he/she can absolutely tell the type of another person because she/he can readily determine the Center of Intelligence and subtype of another person and this gives the person’s ennea-type.

    Think about this. How can we determine the person’s main Center of Intelligence before they themselves deeply consider this? It has, I think, long been debunked that just because a person’s ennea-type is formed from a particular Center that that is the primary Center they use. For example, many 9s are not so much in touch with their body center; many 9s relate more to the heart center and some to the head center. Many 3s do not relate to being heart-centered and some don’t appear this way either.

    How can one determine another’s subtype when subtypes are so subtle and nuanced? Asking the other person before he or she understands the subtypes accurately is no help. Drawing conclusions based on a simplistic understanding of the ennea-types is also misleading. For example, some suggest that the self-preserving subtypes are always concerned about self-preserving issues such as safety and security, etc. At a high level, this is true enough, but this doesn’t mean self-preserving subtypes always have these needs addressed. For example, self-preservation 4s are called reckless-dauntless. One of the ways they respond to the self-preserving instinct is to pay little attention to some of their real or true self-preserving needs. For example, they may have an abundance of money and then spend it all recklessly, or they often work themselves to a frenzy (even being a look-alike for a 3 or a 7) as a way of showing how much they can do and not suffer or as a way to avoid their deeper feelings of melancholy and sadness. Similarly, social subtypes do not always feel comfortable in groups. I am a social 2, and I have a strong but mixed reaction to groups. I like them when they are productive and focused, but am highly aware that groups can be mean and actually harmful to people if left unattended (as in Lord of the Flies).

    Issue 2: The obsession with typing other people
    This issue seems to be getting worse, but perhaps that is because more people know the Enneagram and as a result, more people are “playing with their knowledge” and/or assuming they can accurately type others. I read this on Facebook, on LinkedIn; I hear this at conferences and during informal discussions. And it really disturbs me. Although the reasons for attempting to type others – often public figures – are understandable: it’s a way for us to apply what we think we know; it’s interesting to try to figure out the type’s of others; and I think some people may think that if we can’t type other people, then what use is the system?

    The answer is that the Enneagram is really for our own use and for our own development psychologically and spiritually. We can also use it to improve our compassion for and interactions with others if we know their type accurately. But to assume we can determine another’s type with any certainty – an even more so with public figures whom we don’t know personally and for whom our only data is what we read about them (which may not be accurate) or how we experience them on television or some other media (which has our own bias to our assessment) – is disturbing and even arrogant. That is a strong word and I don’t use it lightly.

    An example: I was at a dinner with some other Enneagrammers, including some well-known Enneagram teachers (unnamed!), and the name Ryan Seacrest came up. One of the Enneagram teachers said, “Oh, he’s absolutely a 3.” I was startled by this comment because of several factors: (1) the statement was made with such certainty, even though this teacher had never met Seacrest; (2) I’ve watched Seacrest on American Idol since its inception, watched his other TV shows, listened to him on the radio for years (he began as a radio personality), read a great about him in magazines, and seen him interviewed multiple times and he appears to me to much more of a 7, though I am not certain of this.

    I remarked, “Oh, I think he’s a 7; what makes you think he’s a 3?”

    I received this response: “He’s a 3 without a doubt.” When I asked about the data for this point of view, I was told, “Seacrest has replaced Dick Clark on some shows and Clark is definitely a 3. Plus, I’ve read biographies about him, and I know he’s a 3.”

    What I was thinking was this: Even if Clark is a 3, this doesn’t make Seacrest a 3. And even if a biography describes a public figure in some way, the biographer has selective information and a point of view, so bias can easily creep in. However, what is said in response was this: “Could you give me some books or articles to read so I could understand better why you came to that conclusion?” What was said in response was this: “I’m right; you’re [Ginger] wrong. I can always tell a person’s type by reading their biographies.”

    Let’s just call this a very awkward moment, to which I said, “I’ve never thought of you as arrogant and I do think it is arrogant to presume we can know the type of another person, and especially public figures, with 100% certainty.”

    The response from this teacher: “You’re wrong.”

    I do want to add that I do engage and, to some extent, enjoy speculating on the types of public figures, but I always hold that it is speculative. Whether others either agree or disagree with my ideas, I am most interested in their reasons and sources of data. I often learn something I didn’t fully consider. For example, with Obama, while I do think (emphasis on “think,” rather than “know”), he’s a 9 with a 1 wing (and have good reasons for this), I also think a very good case can be made for him as a 3 or a 5. I thought through this, think 9 is a better fit (social subtype 9) and think there are strong reasons to eliminate 5 and 3. Yet, I still think these could be possible. So, I can have a healthy conversation with someone who disagrees with me, as long as their reasoning is sound and they don’t take the position: “I’m right; you’re wrong.”

    Issue 3: Purported “Enneagram teachers” who don’t know the Enneagram accurately who are disseminating it to others
    This issue has arisen in so many places around the world (including the US), and of course has to do with the increasingly widespread use of the Enneagram. Fifteen years ago, most people who worked with the Enneagram (specifically, the Enneagram of personality with its roots from Ichazo to Naranjo and then to others) had certified with Riso-Hudson, Palmer-Daniels, Hurley-Donson (their roots were a combination of Guerjieff and Naranjo, to some degree), Jerry Wagner, or Claudio Naranjo. Most had trained with only one of these “schools,” with some having learned it (and in many cases, learned it well) on their own through reading, reflection, and some shorter training with a number of different Enneagram teachers who knew the Enneagram well. During this period, there was limited infusion of Guerjieff and Ichazo, Guerjieff because his “followers” did not (and many still do not) think those of us from the Naranjo roots are using the system correctly. Ichazo-learners of the Enneagram stayed more to themselves, did not singly focus on the Enneagram, and Ichazo began working with what we now know as Tritypes – that is, the idea that we have a type within each center of Intelligence – and did not encourage people he trained to go into the public zone with their knowledge.

    Over the last decade, this has changed, which is both very useful for the Enneagram and also generate the concerns related to issue 3. More and more people have heard of and know the Enneagram, which is wonderful. At the same time, how are they learning it, from whom are they learning it, and are they learning it accurately? Learning it accurately obviously has to do with the “teacher” or mode or learning, but also with the learner. What I am experiencing both inside and outside the US is some incorrect learning, which I think is 65% the teaching and 35% how the learner is processing what they taught. There are so many ways in which this arises, so let me discuss two examples, though there are many, many more.

    Example 1: Inadequately trained Enneagram teachers
    When I was in Hong Kong three years ago doing a Train-the-Trainer program on my first book, Bringing Out the Best in Yourself at Work, a woman from mainland China whom I didn’t know contacted me prior to my going there asking to have dinner with me the night before the program began. I said yes, we had dinner, and she told me two things: (1) she was a 7 (however, she was most clearly a counterphobic 6, which became very clear as the T-the-T progressed, although everyone saw this except her), and (2) she was planning to write an Enneagram book and wanted my help with this. When I asked her how she had learned the Enneagram, she replied that she had read one book (author I didn’t know) and when I asked her how she planned to write a book when she didn’t have a deep or strong knowledge of the Enneagram (I said it more nicely than this), she replied that it didn’t matter because she was simply going to cut and paste from the work of other Enneagram authors, including me!

    Example 2: Mislearning the 27 Enneagram Subtypes
    Almost everywhere I go, there is a fascination (and rightly so!) with the 27 Enneagram Subtypes. And, everywhere I go, there are always people who think they know the Subtypes accurately but have it mostly or entirely wrong. For example (and this is a common misperception), I’ve heard more than a few times that people are being taught that (1) the “dominant” subtype is where we are getting our needs met and (2) the “dormant” subtype is the area in which needs are not being met at all.

    Here’s the problem with this teaching. The subtypes are “neurotic” ways of getting our needs met. In other words, our subtype is the intersection of the passion of our type and our primary instinctual need (self-preservation, social or sexual, also called one-to-one), and our subtype behavior is continuous, repetitive, and largely unconscious. The “dominant” subtype behavior is by definition, neurotic, since if the need were being met, we would not continue it so habitually or so frequently. The example of hunger is useful here. A non-neurotic relationship to food is that a person feels hunger, eats, and then is satisfied or full. The person no longer needs to eat until his or her physical need for hunger rises again (which is not right after eating, since the person is satisfied). A neurotic relationship to food is when a person repeatedly over-eats or under-eats, being out of touch with the body’s need for food. In these cases, food often represents something other than nutrition for the person and thus, it is a neurotic need until the individual examines his or her relationship to food.

    Similarly, our “dormant” subtype, the one that is least activated (self-preservation, social, or sexual) does not mean we are getting none of our needs met in this area. Obviously, if one’s self-preserving instinct is the “dormant” subtype, it doesn’t mean that the person is penniless, does not have shelter, doesn’t eat well, or doesn’t pay bills and taxes!

    I’ve even heard people say that a “teacher” has told them that they should develop the subtype that is “dormant,” using the subtype for the ennea-type. Ouch! This is just one more way of not getting our true needs met, which is really one of the main points of knowing our main subtype(s): what real needs do we have in each of the three instinctual arenas (self-preservation, social, and one-to-one) and how can we get these true needs met?

    More on Subtypes
    Here’s the Claudio Naranjo theory that I learned in Germany 1+ years ago: Most of us have 2 “awake” subtypes and a third that is “asleep.” With the 2 awake subtypes one may be dominant (most common) or both may be equal (can happen) or they may alternate at different points in our life (happens to quite a few people). Claudio says we should think like this: there are really 6 versions of subtypes for each type: SP-Social; SP- 1-1; Social-SP; Social-1-1; 1-1;SP; and 1-1-Social. So there are really more than 9 characters or even 27 characters; there are 6 X9 or 54!
    Read More

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  9. #1049
    Kill4Me's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    TIM
    SLE-Ti 8w7 so/sp
    Posts
    2,504
    Mentioned
    248 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Revision:

    Cuivienen: 3w4 sx/sp

    New Additions:

    HotelAmbush: 1w9 so/sp
    Niffer: 6w5 sp/sx
    Bertrand: 9w1 sp/sx
    Nanashi: 1w2 so/sp



    The Updated List

  10. #1050

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Chryssie - mb E-9 [ they are everywhere 8| ]
    "I just want to feel what you feel sometimes"
    "I have zero ambition beyond .... what do I even want out of life, huh, I don't know. I waste all my energy on whatever people need of me, if its money then sure ill work, if its fun then sure lets fucking kill ourselves having fun. If I have no one to work for or no one to please then I just sleep because there's nothing else." link
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  11. #1051
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,767
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    No ones reading those walls of texts ms te polr
    ~ ESTP ~ SLE ~ ESTp ~ Self-Pres 7w8 ~ Sp/Sx ~ Fire Element ~ Aries Sign ~ Beta Quadra ~ Gryffindor House ~ Summer Season ~ SLUEN ~

  12. #1052
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,312
    Mentioned
    970 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    *
    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    No ones reading those walls of texts ms te polr
    Because I kind of like you I will try to do a tl;dr version for you next time, mr ti polr.






    [IMG]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/******parody/images/0/0f/TLDR_Wikipedia_******.png/revision/latest?cb=20140508224554[/IMG]





    This is the future... of tl;dr attitude and why people don't understand the systems.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  13. #1053

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    This is the future... of tl;dr attitude and why people don't understand the systems.
    Systematic approach reduces the info to general features. It's Te style to overload by info.
    Seems we both tend to use our polr more than average.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  14. #1054
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,312
    Mentioned
    970 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Systematic approach reduces the info to general features. It's Te style to overload by info.
    Seems we both tend to use our polr more than average.
    Being literate is not Te sol.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  15. #1055

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Being literate is not Te sol.
    Systematic approach (your valued) is when you move from easy and short to harder and detailed.
    To be literate means also understanding (Ti), besides raw knowledge (Te). Larger texts have lesser chance to be read and then understood what was important in them. While shorter and easier ones have higher chance to be read and understood, and then mb a person will read more about the theme.
    The optimum would be to say the short essence and near to give links to more thorough material. This needs more of your own work - to process the initial data (Te), to find the most important (Ti) and say it clearly.

    I tend to write large texts only when I "just talk". If I'd need to explain or to educate - I'd prefer the systematic approach.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  16. #1056
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    what

    I guess my question is do you really think taking the following into account

    weak intuition (poor discernment in shades of meaning)
    language barrier (relative to native speakers, limited vocabulary and experience)
    idiosyncratic typology (arbitrary distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy)

    that you're going to effectively give advice on how best to communicate vis-a-vis values and so forth? maybe someone can translate but I feel like your above post is totally confusing as to what its actually trying to convey. in other words, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. and the thing thats annoying about it is, for something being so generally worthless, there's still this condescending air to it out of all proportion with its true value. its like jesus dude, before you lecture people can you at least try to make sure its not a piece of poop. I feel like if you actually understood the functions as well as you purport yourself to maybe that would come across, but it doesn't. at least not to me

    I know you think because you don't value Fe it doesn't matter, but there's a Te threshold where its like, if what you're saying is totally nonsensical, because of low Fe or not, you need to work it into a better product (Te) for anyone to care (Fi), lest you just be wasting everyone's time (Ni), and people will resist (Se) such an offense to the outer situation (Ne), because by any metric, its just stupid

    I feel like at best by your zany system you should stick to commenting on appearance and how you associate how people look and carry themselves with certain values or expressed functions (or anecdotes about real life interactions), since that's actually kind of interesting, vs the strange dogmatic interpretations of theory are superfluous in that they're like solipsistic cream filling to functional labels, completely detached from a common meaning (ironically you assert your own private meanings as absolute in the name of orthodoxy, but its a sham because you wouldn't even need to if such a thing were true, an orthodoxy with a following of one is just a conspiracy theory). its enough to know you slap "Xe or Xi" on the impressions, not what you mean when you say Xe or Xi, since its totally incomprehensible anyway. attempts to educate on that front are not well taken
    Last edited by Bertrand; 03-22-2018 at 09:28 PM.

  17. #1057
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,312
    Mentioned
    970 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Systematic approach (your valued) is when you move from easy and short to harder and detailed.
    To be literate means also understanding (Ti), besides raw knowledge (Te). Larger texts have lesser chance to be read and then understood what was important in them. While shorter and easier ones have higher chance to be read and understood, and then mb a person will read more about the theme.
    The optimum would be to say the short essence and near to give links to more thorough material. This needs more of your own work - to process the initial data (Te), to find the most important (Ti) and say it clearly.

    I tend to write large texts only when I "just talk". If I'd need to explain or to educate - I'd prefer the systematic approach.
    Thing is, I don't care who reads them. I know someone will and will get something from it. I am more likely to read something quoted here than follow random links. I don't need a hundred browser windows open.

    I am not going to summarize that whole quote in my own words since it would be reinventing the wheel. I say things in my own words all the time anyway and it seems if I say it it carries less weight around here than if someone who appears to have more authority on a subject says it. If someone doesn't want to read it they don't have to. I am not going to adjust what I post to please one person and I don't think he expected me to. FTR, I don't read most of what is posted on this forum anymore because there isn't much clarity to be found.

    I do understand English is not your (or others) first language so I get why it may be a pain in the ass but skipping it is always an option. That is how I feel about reading most google translated Russian articles and tests.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  18. #1058

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Thing is, I don't care who reads them.
    So you understand that big texts are generally not read. People here are for fun, while to read a lot is hard. They prefer to read only what is very important. Instead of large text it would be more useful to post shorter essence with Ti and sometimes give sources for more. This was my idea.

    > I do understand English is not your (or others) first language so I get why it may be a pain in the ass but skipping it is always an option.

    I mostly read your own texts (not citations) in case they are for theme interesting for me. But I also see sometimes the important could be said shorter.

    I saw at Jung similar style. He like starts to think about something and then writes what gets to his head and then leaves as is. As the result - larger text with a lot of additional info. In his "Psychological Types" can be left only "10 chapter" (and there was such publishing), while 90% of the rest text looks as additional. Mb it's something with your base Ni like at him, but partly may be related to superego Te (which may overload by data "just in case"). If you'd try to express the ideas shorter with Ti this may be pleasant as it's your valued way.

    > That is how I feel about reading most google translated Russian articles and tests.

    Those have also special auto-translator charm. To read something serious with that stuff is not good idea - any place may be translated wrongly, besides general quality of the text. Auto-translation is a supplement tool or for short, not important, not specialized texts like entertainment pages.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  19. #1059
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    lol too bad carl jung didn't have you around to edit out 90% of the work that you devoted your life to

  20. #1060
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    TIM
    1sx
    Posts
    2,588
    Mentioned
    257 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    This had a lot of good points in it. I especially agree with this:
    The answer is that the Enneagram is really for our own use and for our own development psychologically and spiritually. We can also use it to improve our compassion for and interactions with others if we know their type accurately. But to assume we can determine another’s type with any certainty – an even more so with public figures whom we don’t know personally and for whom our only data is what we read about them (which may not be accurate) or how we experience them on television or some other media (which has our own bias to our assessment) – is disturbing and even arrogant.
    I think one way to type others, or rather to help them type themselves is through the advice given to each type specifically, what advice rings true and is most helpful, what are your real issues? Some people find this easier to determine than others, and even being able to look at oneself objectively and with a critical eye can speak to type. I think perhaps both 1s and 4s are more likely to identify with the negative aspects of their given types and see the problems with themselves, whereas probably 8s and maybe also 3s and 7s are less likely to do this. It's not to put a label on yourself or anyone else, but to understand aspects of yourself and grow through that understanding.

    I also thought this was good, and important to remember
    The subtypes are “neurotic” ways of getting our needs met. In other words, our subtype is the intersection of the passion of our type and our primary instinctual need (self-preservation, social or sexual, also called one-to-one), and our subtype behavior is continuous, repetitive, and largely unconscious. The “dominant” subtype behavior is by definition, neurotic, since if the need were being met, we would not continue it so habitually or so frequently. The example of hunger is useful here. A non-neurotic relationship to food is that a person feels hunger, eats, and then is satisfied or full. The person no longer needs to eat until his or her physical need for hunger rises again (which is not right after eating, since the person is satisfied). A neurotic relationship to food is when a person repeatedly over-eats or under-eats, being out of touch with the body’s need for food. In these cases, food often represents something other than nutrition for the person and thus, it is a neurotic need until the individual examines his or her relationship to food.

  21. #1061

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    509 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Systematic approach (your valued) is when you move from easy and short to harder and detailed.
    To be literate means also understanding (Ti), besides raw knowledge (Te). Larger texts have lesser chance to be read and then understood what was important in them. While shorter and easier ones have higher chance to be read and understood, and then mb a person will read more about the theme.
    The optimum would be to say the short essence and near to give links to more thorough material. This needs more of your own work - to process the initial data (Te), to find the most important (Ti) and say it clearly.

    I tend to write large texts only when I "just talk". If I'd need to explain or to educate - I'd prefer the systematic approach.
    It's just funny you'd post this, since you do the bolded all the time (Ti).



    Quote Originally Posted by Bertrand View Post
    what

    I guess my question is do you really think taking the following into account

    weak intuition (poor discernment in shades of meaning)
    language barrier (relative to native speakers, limited vocabulary and experience)
    idiosyncratic typology (arbitrary distinctions between orthodoxy and heresy)

    that you're going to effectively give advice on how best to communicate vis-a-vis values and so forth? maybe someone can translate but I feel like your above post is totally confusing as to what its actually trying to convey. in other words, I don't know what the fuck you're talking about. and the thing thats annoying about it is, for something being so generally worthless, there's still this condescending air to it out of all proportion with its true value. its like jesus dude, before you lecture people can you at least try to make sure its not a piece of poop. I feel like if you actually understood the functions as well as you purport yourself to maybe that would come across, but it doesn't. at least not to me

    I know you think because you don't value Fe it doesn't matter, but there's a Te threshold where its like, if what you're saying is totally nonsensical, because of low Fe or not, you need to work it into a better product (Te) for anyone to care (Fi), lest you just be wasting everyone's time (Ni), and people will resist (Se) such an offense to the outer situation (Ne), because by any metric, its just stupid

    I feel like at best by your zany system you should stick to commenting on appearance and how you associate how people look and carry themselves with certain values or expressed functions (or anecdotes about real life interactions), since that's actually kind of interesting, vs the strange dogmatic interpretations of theory are superfluous in that they're like solipsistic cream filling to functional labels, completely detached from a common meaning (ironically you assert your own private meanings as absolute in the name of orthodoxy, but its a sham because you wouldn't even need to if such a thing were true, an orthodoxy with a following of one is just a conspiracy theory). its enough to know you slap "Xe or Xi" on the impressions, not what you mean when you say Xe or Xi, since its totally incomprehensible anyway. attempts to educate on that front are not well taken
    This is your Ti devaluing approach to Sol's post? lol

  22. #1062

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    It's just funny you'd post this, since you do the bolded all the time (Ti).
    I understand that larger and more complex text may to have more of useful info, but worse understood or ignored. Also to write larger texts needs more efforts. It's practical usefulness question and of my resources. To have leading function also means good understanding where such info and efforts are appropriate.
    The difference of contexts is what types with Ne polr get not good, and hence tend to see too surfacely.

    To have nonvalued does not mean to ignore this. Especially when it's strong function. The preference is not absolute, all 8 functions are equally important. My common talking is lesser Ti-like than what you see on forums. Here it's shifted to SMS style - short and Ti-compressed essence of info.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  23. #1063
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Spiritus Mundi
    TIM
    psyche 4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    11,312
    Mentioned
    970 Post(s)
    Tagged
    42 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by squark View Post
    This had a lot of good points in it. I especially agree with this:

    I think one way to type others, or rather to help them type themselves is through the advice given to each type specifically, what advice rings true and is most helpful, what are your real issues? Some people find this easier to determine than others, and even being able to look at oneself objectively and with a critical eye can speak to type. I think perhaps both 1s and 4s are more likely to identify with the negative aspects of their given types and see the problems with themselves, whereas probably 8s and maybe also 3s and 7s are less likely to do this. It's not to put a label on yourself or anyone else, but to understand aspects of yourself and grow through that understanding.

    I also thought this was good, and important to remember
    My enneagram journey has taken a new direction. Many years ago I started with the core type and focused on understanding mine. Later I looked into trifix theory which lead me to tritype which, imo, is more about marketing another's (Ichazo) ideas in a watered down form of enneagram that is more appealing to the masses. It is like a quick fix for those looking for a label more than understanding. I have a copy of their book. Not saying the Fauvre's are doing anything wrong by watering things down since it is just another tool to narrow down options from 9 to 3 within the system. There is so much variation within each core type that I no longer feel it neccessary for me to explore. If you see me giving a trytype from now on it is safe to assume I am considering 3 types for the person.

    Later, in 1996, Katherine Fauvre met a teacher from Arica that referenced Oscar Ichazo's teachings in a workshop. What was of interest, is that the teacher mentioned that Ichazo had added the concept of "tri-fix" a similar theory to Tritype,[3][4]. Because Ichazo added "tri-fix" circa 1996, it was not a part of the original dissemination of the Enneagram in 1969, nor was not a part of Dr. Claudio Naranjo's Enneagram teachings in his Seekers After Truth groups (SAT) from 1971-1973. Ichazo's "tri-fix" suggested that people use 3 Enneagram fixations, one from each center. This is what Katherine's typing interviews had revealed as well. As such, it confirmed that the patterns Katherine's research findings suggested were significant as they had also been discovered by Ichazo, the originatior of the Enneagram of Personality.

    At that point in time, nothing was published on Oscar Ichazo's "tri-fix" work. Finally, in December 1996 and January 1997, Enneagram Monthly published interviews with Oscar Ichazo that included a paragraph on the concept of tri-fix[5]. This further validated Fauvre's findings that individuals have not just one, but 3 Enneagram Type. The difference was that Fauvre found that rather than only the "fixations" of the three types, people utilized the full defense strategy of their three types including: the mental fixations, the emotional passions and the viseral sensations of each type. The nuances of type produced by this study inspired Katherine to continue her studies to learn more about the internal experience of EnneagramTypes and the deeper meaning of the intersection of the three Enneagram Types.

    In 2008, Katherine Fauvre coined the term "Tritype" in order to distinguish her vast body of research and resulting theory from Ichazo’s teachings, and the teachings of Arica. All published material to date is from Katherine's work as Ichazo never published more than the initial paragraph about Tritype in the Enneagam Monthly[5].

    http://www.katherinefauvre.com/tritype/
    I guess what I am saying is I have come full circle. There is nothing in the "tritype" of 458/9 that cannot be explained by core type, wing, integration/disintegration and instinct stacking. Both "The Scholar" and "The Contemplative" descriptions can work since they are short and kind of generic. I am not a "core" 5, 8 or 9. 8 is certainly more fitting than 9 over a lifetime. I checked out type 6 since a lot of people who think they have an 8 fix are 6s but none of 6 fits me at my core or even surface.

    What I see now is that 4w5 sx/sp covers all the tritype stuff. I have spent weeks reading the books of all the enneagram teachers I feel are important to understanding the whole system. There is still much more to read. It can be overwhelming as I need time to process in between.

    There isn't a lot to any of the descriptions on official "tritype". It just dilutes everything, imo, and is useful mostly to gain clarity on one's enneagram type when undecided between types. I was not undecided since I had already put a lot of work into this before. I was mostly interested in seeing how the idea of tritype was actually any different for me. When my sisters visited I got to explore this further. My EII sister is a 9w1 sp/sx but she got 946 or 964 (don't have it handy) on her tritype quiz. Although the description is rather fitting it just didn't matter since I was able to see how the core, wing, integration/disintegration and instincts explained her more fully than a tritype.

    I am not saying tritype is worthless. Like I said, it can be used to narrow down when undecided between types. I feel I have a deeper understanding having investigated it and seeing how it all fit. I suppose some of you had already figured this out but had no desire to interfere with another's exploration of the self. I don't want to interfere either as I find enneagram a valuable tool when used as intended. Now for the synch in this, I remember you saying something similar to what I have concluded? It triggered something (an insight) in me awhile back. Regardless if you actually posted something, or I am imagining it now, it seems fitting I reveal all this in response to you.

    “My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.”​ —C.G. Jung

     



  24. #1064

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aylen View Post
    Later I looked into trifix theory which lead me to tritype which, imo, is more about marketing another's (Ichazo) ideas in a watered down form of enneagram that is more appealing to the masses.
    As a side effect - more chance to mislead by wrong "leading" type as it becomes lesser clear.
    For example, Aster behaves as 9 (which should be common for base Fi), but has 4 as 1st and 9 on 2nd place.
    Socionics also has dudes which try to assign to one human several types: mask, Gulenko's levels, secondary type as subtype, etc heresy. So when they see a behavior common for other type - instead of correcting the probability for the type, they easily rationalize the possible mistake.

    > There is nothing in the "tritype" of 458/9 that cannot be explained by core type, wing, integration/disintegration and instinct stacking.

    I have doubts about those wings and stackings. Mb after some reading and applying on practice I'll change the opinion.
    Jung's types have kind of wings as the idea of 2 subtypes with shift to base or creative function. The sense for such subtypes looks as doubtful from theory and practical usage. While stackings reminds how random typology like Gulenko's "subtypes" is added to Jung's types.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  25. #1065
    Bertrand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,936
    Mentioned
    484 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    @Aylen

    I wish I could give that 10 likes

  26. #1066
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,767
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think @Chae is 8w7
    ~ ESTP ~ SLE ~ ESTp ~ Self-Pres 7w8 ~ Sp/Sx ~ Fire Element ~ Aries Sign ~ Beta Quadra ~ Gryffindor House ~ Summer Season ~ SLUEN ~

  27. #1067
    Spermatozoa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Your most intimate spaces
    TIM
    IEE 379 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,989
    Mentioned
    153 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    I think @Chae is 8w7
    This is the most fundamental aspect of Enneagram 8 (9types.com):

    Unhealthy loop controlled by Basic Fear:
    Fear of submitting to others -> controlling -> independent -> Fear of submitting to others
    In a so/sx individual (and Chae is absolutely so/sx, I can tell she's preoccupied by so > sx > sp based on the content of her posts, which I'll get to later), the fear of submission, which defines all core 8s often leads to the following:

    Social Eights: "Friend or Foe?"

    • I can't let my guard down until I know where I stand and that I'm respected.
    • I test my friends for their loyalty. Once trust is firmly established, I usually stay in friendships for life.
    • When in a group, I focus on who else has power in order to maintain my authority.
    • I will go to bat for my friends and the weaker members of the community, but I want them to try to develop self-reliance and get back on their feet again.
    • I try to be loyal and work problems out, but if someone walks over the line and betrays my trust, I may cut him or her out of my life forever.
    • I love the excitement of a righteous struggle for truth or fairness.
    • I usually take the role of protector in a group and make sure that justice is upheld.


    I agree with an 8 fix for Chae but not core, because she is more preoccupied with appearing competent and stylish than powerful. She posts long monologues in which she'll describe her daily life. The need to constantly let other people know that you're doing something, and with a great deal of emotional embellishment, is typical of So-firsts and especially So 3s. They must self promote to remind others who they are and stay relevant in the social pecking order, as this soothes their core fear. I notice she has extensive knowledge of celebrity culture and values the aesthetics (and idea) of glamour, fame and fortune, which also reinforce the theme of status seeking. 8s by contrast romanticise a rugged, tough life, and their desire to protect means they're less bothered by awkwardness, sadness, despair etc in others than 3s tend to be. I can sympathise with her choices, though, as they stem from a 3s need to be recognized and not shamed, both of which I relate to (although I only want to be an irresistible sex god. I don't care about the opinion of someone who I don't wanna fuck ).

    Another thing: I notice a number of 8 descriptions mention a desire for "justice", but bear in mind that 8s have an...uh...kind of blunt vigilante style justice ("he screwed me over, now I'm gonna make him bleed like a bitch", I think most crazy exes are 8s lol) and it isn't based on ethical codes like say a 1 ("these people disgust me and need to be made an example of") or cp6 snowflake issues ("I'm scared and offended! Fuck you you rapist!").

    I still type her as 3w4 (387) and so/sx.
    Last edited by Spermatozoa; 03-28-2018 at 03:40 AM.

  28. #1068

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    509 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    I understand that larger and more complex text may to have more of useful info, but worse understood or ignored. Also to write larger texts needs more efforts. It's practical usefulness question and of my resources. To have leading function also means good understanding where such info and efforts are appropriate.
    The difference of contexts is what types with Ne polr get not good, and hence tend to see too surfacely.

    To have nonvalued does not mean to ignore this. Especially when it's strong function. The preference is not absolute, all 8 functions are equally important. My common talking is lesser Ti-like than what you see on forums. Here it's shifted to SMS style - short and Ti-compressed essence of info.
    Eh, you are using the theory in an unfalsifiable way.


    The difference of contexts is what types with Ne polr get not good, and hence tend to see too surfacely.
    Actually, LSE sees more "surfacely" than LSI because of extraversion.

    Ni is deeper than Ne, with seeing the deep essence. Ti is also deeper compared to Te.

    I find you do have the Ne PoLR in terms of not paying attention to those different Ne contexts. You easily exclude the Ne possibilities, as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    I have doubts about those wings and stackings. Mb after some reading and applying on practice I'll change the opinion.
    Jung's types have kind of wings as the idea of 2 subtypes with shift to base or creative function. The sense for such subtypes looks as doubtful from theory and practical usage. While stackings reminds how random typology like Gulenko's "subtypes" is added to Jung's types.
    There are definitely people who have a shift to the Creative function so this subtype system has validity. Example, think of an IEI that's very contemplative, engages with their perceptions most of the time, that's the IEI-Ni, and then think of another IEI that for an introvert is quite sociable and emotional and uses emotional influence a lot with people, that's the IEI-Fe. I've seen both kind. Same kind of logic is true for the other types too as far as I've investigated.

  29. #1069

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    Eh, you are using the theory in an unfalsifiable way.
    You underestimate the context factor.

    > LSE sees more "surfacely" than LSI because of extraversion.

    "Surface" as was used means simplified and hence lesser correct, what relates to weak region and tendency to close eyes on nonvalued one.

    > Ni is deeper than Ne

    they differ only on what it's directed

    > I find you do have the Ne PoLR in terms of not paying attention

    ok. I'm attracted to EII and ESI, while EIE and ESE annoy me cause I'm LSI
    also I prefer and popularize Ne typing method because I like it, cause it's my polr
    etc.

    I got your "falsifiable" view.

    > There are definitely people who have a shift to the Creative function so this subtype system has validity.

    There are people with more or lesser accentuated type.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  30. #1070
    a two horned unicorn renegade COVID 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    sniffing your butt
    TIM
    ILE-α/H, LEVF
    Posts
    5,379
    Mentioned
    234 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    I opt 9 into my tritype so I get an excuse for laziness.
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

  31. #1071

    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    TIM
    LSI-Se sx
    Posts
    4,697
    Mentioned
    509 Post(s)
    Tagged
    25 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    You underestimate the context factor.

    > LSE sees more "surfacely" than LSI because of extraversion.

    "Surface" as was used means simplified and hence lesser correct, what relates to weak region and tendency to close eyes on nonvalued one.
    Extraversion is less analytical than introversion...


    > Ni is deeper than Ne

    they differ only on what it's directed
    Yeah, Ni is directed to deeper stuff rather than surface stuff.


    >I find you do have the Ne PoLR in terms of not paying attention

    ok. I'm attracted to EII and ESI, while EIE and ESE annoy me cause I'm LSI
    also I prefer and popularize Ne typing method because I like it, cause it's my polr
    etc.

    I got your "falsifiable" view.
    I don't see how VI is Ne.

    As for who you are attracted to... I noticed you typed Maritsa and Chae EIE... they aren't EIE or even Fe valuers lol

    In your system maybe, but clearly we have very different notions about what Fi vs Fe are, then.


    > There are definitely people who have a shift to the Creative function so this subtype system has validity.

    There are people with more or lesser accentuated type.
    The idea here however is that Creative is accentuated, not simply the type itself.

  32. #1072
    meme hotline Chae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    TIM
    ethic 3
    Posts
    9,085
    Mentioned
    711 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Troll Nr 007 View Post
    I opt 9 into my tritype so I get an excuse for laziness.

  33. #1073
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    4
    Posts
    3,946
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Subteigh: 954?

  34. #1074
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    4
    Posts
    3,946
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Niffer 846>864, can’t tell if sx/sp or sx/so

  35. #1075
    Haikus niffer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    TIM
    SLE-H 8w9 SX
    Posts
    2,815
    Mentioned
    279 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    T_T

    Enneagram is ridiculous. Someone needs to explain to me how 8 and 4 can even coexist in the same type (I know how it's supposed to work but in reality not in theory).

    They're so opposite that to have them both prominent in one's personality would seem almost schizo, tho I guess similar ideas work in socionics with the ego and superid.

    I guess it'd be like a flavoring. I still can't see enneagram as a legit reliable psychological trope thing.

    Actually not a bad call though @manjac
    Last edited by niffer; 03-31-2018 at 08:56 AM.

  36. #1076
    maniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    TIM
    4
    Posts
    3,946
    Mentioned
    232 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niffer View Post
    T_T

    Enneagram is ridiculous. Someone needs to explain to me how 8 and 4 can even coexist in the same type (I know how it's supposed to work but in reality not in theory).

    They're so opposite that to have them both prominent in one's personality would seem almost schizo, tho I guess similar ideas work in socionics with the ego and superid.

    I guess it'd be like a flavoring. I still can't see enneagram as a legit reliable psychological trope thing.

    Actually not a bad call though @manjac
    Yeah it’s odd. But if you think about it all of the types have aspects that contradict eachother in one way or another. I’ll try to come up with a better answer when I’m not hungover.

    There are things about 8 and 4 that don’t contradict eachother like feeling like an outsider (4). Also both are reactive truth teller sort of types (well, when they’re together in a tritype) They both are individualists and independent and when they’re together in a tritype one becomes really independent and a separate entity

    and yesit’d be like a flavoring. A fix isn’t as strong as a core type. I think the fixes makes the core types problem manifest in a particular way. Maybe for a 8 with a 4 fix it’d feel harder than another 8 to maintain the “nothing can affect me” attitude (and sx first. Sx is similar to 4 in the volatility) but they’d still feel a strong need to have it

  37. #1077

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Myst View Post
    I don't see how VI is Ne.
    Nonverbal typing uses visual information and hence relates to VI.
    Using of nonverbal for typing is made by intuitive impressions about an object's traits in the current moment what relates to Ne. IR effects also to Fi.
    Such this magic works.

    While physiognomy (which relates to S-T) is baseless heresy. I do not use it and others should not in VI.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

  38. #1078
    a two horned unicorn renegade COVID 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    sniffing your butt
    TIM
    ILE-α/H, LEVF
    Posts
    5,379
    Mentioned
    234 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Seeing stuff in front of you is tied to sensing usage. Sensing also includes hearing. Therefore typing is sensing first. Q.E.D.
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

  39. #1079
    Number 9 large's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Baking bread
    TIM
    ESTp 7w8 Aries Sp/Sx
    Posts
    3,767
    Mentioned
    226 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sol View Post
    Nonverbal typing uses visual information and hence relates to VI.
    Using of nonverbal for typing is made by intuitive impressions about an object's traits in the current moment what relates to Ne. IR effects also to Fi.
    Such this magic works.

    While physiognomy (which relates to S-T) is baseless heresy. I do not use it and others should not in VI.
    You get those impressions by SEEING their face, so its Se
    ~ ESTP ~ SLE ~ ESTp ~ Self-Pres 7w8 ~ Sp/Sx ~ Fire Element ~ Aries Sign ~ Beta Quadra ~ Gryffindor House ~ Summer Season ~ SLUEN ~

  40. #1080

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    11,811
    Mentioned
    1081 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Number 9 large View Post
    You get those impressions by SEEING their face
    For typing are used intuitive impressions.
    S is used to perceive data, but not for typing, as I do not _consciously_ operate by forms and proportions.
    To describe it easier, may be thought that N is _also_ used. But it's lesser correctly.
    Types examples: video bloggers, actors

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •