Why is McNew's being a One shocking to you? He's an EII.Rmcnew ... a 1? That suggestion wins first prize in the Absurdity Contest.
No, he is an IEE.Originally Posted by Ezra
Because every Five and every Eight is a logical type.Originally Posted by Ezra
No. They don't exist.Originally Posted by Ezra
Every E1 is J : there are rare cases of SLI's for exampleOriginally Posted by Phaedrus
Every E2 is F : there are rare cases of LSE's for example
Every E3 is E : mostly, but I found a significant amount of cases of LSI's, and less frequent cases of ESI's and SLI's
Every E4 is N : globally, they're mostly Intuitive, but what do you think of SEI's ? besides, there are rare cases of LSE's.
Every E5 is IT : mostly, quite frequent cases of ILE's and LIE's happen in the case of an Intimate Five
E6 is mostly IJ : true. Cases of IP types happen (SLI, ILI) ; as well as quite frequent cases of EJ (LIE, EIE, LSE), and rare cases of EP (IEE)
Every E7 is P : mostly, but you may find some cases of LSI's and ESI's, as well as ESE's and EIE's, or even LIE's.
Every E8 is E : it's easy to find LSI's, and there are rare cases of ESI's and SLI's.
Every E9 is IP : globally, Nines are mostly IEE's. Less frequent cases of ILE's or EII's can be found.
Ok, at least you got my type right machin
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
The same aruguments apply here. If it is a clear example of an E2, then it is not a LSE but more likely an ESE.Originally Posted by machintruc
No. There are lots of LSIs that can easily be mistaken for E3s due to their obsession with positions of power etc. But they are still E1s, and they identify with being E1s (I have tested them). An outside observer who don't understand their real motivations might think that they are E3s though.Originally Posted by machintruc
SEIs can't be E4s because SEIs are clearly (in every single case) S types. LSEs can of course not be E4s, that doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe you mistake some of them for E4s due to their obsessions with New-Age stuff, conspiracy theories etc. (not true of the majority of LSEs, but I have seen it in one LSE I know IRL).Originally Posted by machintruc
They might test as E5s, but are they really E5s? They certainly don't have the same typical E5 attitudes as I do. I strongly doubt that they really are E5s, but it doesn't make as little sense as your previous suggestions.Originally Posted by machintruc
The ILIs are mistyped. They are probably 5w6s. The SLI is the problematic type in the Enneagram because it doesn't fit naturally anywhere. I really don't care much where you put it (as long as you don't put them in E1, E2, or E4), but it makes most sense to put all of the SLIs in E5 due to their PoLR and creative .Originally Posted by machintruc
There are certainly no LSI in E7. That is totally out of the question -- it's a contradiction in terms. Get rid of that insane idea immediately. You simply cannot put two opposing temperaments in the same Enneagram type. It is of course equally insane to put an ESI there. Impossible. And I don't believe that there are any ESEs, EIEs, or LIEs there. I think that FDG has mistyped himself in one of these two systems. Either he is not an E7 but an 8w7, or he is not a LIE. I cannot see any strong reason why that is not still a possibility. The Enneagram is not so well defined that you can say with certainty that someone who have traits of both E8 and E7 cannot be one or the other. And if you are an LIE you should be an E8, not an E7.Originally Posted by machintruc
The LSIs are most likely mistyped E1s, and the SLIs ... they are the problematic ones as usual, but it's not their fault, it's the Enneagram's fault.Originally Posted by machintruc
No. Globally most Nines are definitely SEIs. No EIIs can be found -- they are mistyped IEIs in that case, or they are E6s or E4s. The IEEs are E7s -- all of them. You have Rick mistyped for sure. Some ILEs can identify strongly with E9, but when you observe their behaviours and attitudes more closely, you realize that they are really E7s too.Originally Posted by machintruc
I confess that I have problems with the concept of a SEI as 4. I can see why some SEIs, to the outside observer, would appear as 4; but if you look at what really makes type 4 internally, I can't see how that would work. I think 4s are most obviously IEI; if you really want to stretch it, I guess some of the more non-E3 EIEs might then fit in 4, too. And a LSE who would be a 4 would be Bizarro-world stuff in my opinion.
Of course a SEI can easily identify with lots of 4 characteristics, but why would they be more like 4s than like 9s?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
E2 always seemed very "wise" IEE (knows how others are feeling so decides for them) or annoying ESE ("are you sure you don't want soup. It's still warm!", ..."for the fifth time, NO!"). I can see some logic in this short description. One time we were in a pub with friends and we were lifting chairs around and I made sure that we don't block the way for other people. The ISTj told me, "wow, you are so considerate toward other people, I wouldn't have even thought of that". That's consistent with E2.
but what do I know about enneagram anyway. I just made many many tests and in the end stumbled upon a description that I didn't disagree with.
Enneagram Type Two (the Helper) with Enneagram Type Three (the Achiever)
What Each Type Brings to the Relationship
Both Enneagram Twos and Threes are driven by their feelings and emotional needs-although this is not always apparent in the case of Threes. Both are also driven by their need for attention and the desire to be loved-although this is not always apparent in the case of Twos. But for these reasons, both are oriented toward people and toward activities that will place them in the spotlight. This makes the Two/Three couple one of the most interpersonally attractive and impactful pairings possible. Individually and collectively, they are outgoing, sociable, high-spirited, charming, and often physically attractive. Both know how to make a favorable impression on people and to win them over. Each type brings energy, personal and social ambition, the ability to communicate with people and to make others feel like they are the center of attention. Both know how to get people to like them and to rally support to achieve their goals. Twos in particular bring a more personal, individual focus to their interactions with others. They are thoughtful and follow up exchanges with genuine kindness and compassion. Threes bring flexibility, charm, practicality, and a goal-oriented vision for ways the couple can improve. Twos like to feel proud of their loved ones, and Threes want to make their partner proud.
There is also a particular way that this pairing works as a team: Twos like to put the spotlight on others, and Threes like to be in the spotlight. Twos like to be the power behind the throne, and Threes can be happy being the point person for the couple. As long as healthy Threes appreciate the lavish attention of the Two, this arrangement can work well. In a sense, this is almost an ideal political couple—socially adept, energetic, virtually radiating charm and self-confidence, inviting others (by their manner and attractiveness) to join them in some way. Twos and Threes can be dazzling—a couple so widely admired and socially gifted that they become icons for their social sphere and time.
Potential Trouble Spots or Issues
A couple with such conscious star power also tends to be self-conscious—and even more conscious of each other. Twos get jealous and possessive of Threes. They can fall into a "I made you—you owe me" syndrome, feeling used and unappreciated. For all of their apparent willingness to take second place, Twos want to be recognized privately by their partners and to be made to feel that they are important. But Threes typically find it difficult to thank others for their success or to share the glory. Moreover, Threes may feel that Twos overestimate their contributions: they take credit for too much, sometimes, embarrassingly, in public. As a result, Twos can start to undermine the Three's confidence to get the Three to feel that he or she depends on the Two. Threes react quickly and strongly to perceived criticism and potential humiliation by distancing themselves—inevitably creating more anxiety and manipulation in the Two, a vicious cycle.
Part of the problem is that both have underlying feelings of shame and vulnerability and they know each other's weak spots and can play on them when they have to. Furthermore, potential conflicts can arise because neither Twos nor Threes are particularly introspective nor are they very interested in their own underlying motives. They simply assume that they are traveling in the same direction—toward increasing success and social validation-only to realize that they have drifted apart and may actually be at loggerheads with each other. Twos fundamentally feel that Threes put work and career before them, their children and home life, primary values for Twos. They feel that Threes are too focused on success and that they are missing the really valuable things in life. Threes, on the other hand, can feel stifled by the Two's insistence on the need to spend time together. Threes feel Twos are smothering and emotionally manipulative, making them feel guilty for working hard and making the most of themselves. Intimacy deteriorates into bickering, and what it means to have a successful relationship becomes a real question. Disdain for each other can erupt into open hostilities.
IEI Fours are likely 4w5s. You're thinking of the stereotypical flamboyant 4w3. 4w5s are not at ALL "girly". They're often serious-minded, intellectual, but also emotionally volatile; usually more introverted and introspective than the 4w3.
Do some research. In the real world. Meet some real 4s.
socio: INFp - IEI
ennea: 4w5 sp/sx
Originally Posted by Mark Twain
I wasn't saying that Reactive Types were evil. I said that I didn't like them. I consider myself as a friendly person, and I don't like hostile people. That's all.
How come a positivist type is bound to be in the low serotonin group? I do think your classifications are too rigid, Phaedrus. I even know a SLI 7! The ennagram is not scientific, its descriptions are vague, so if you meet an: optimistic, energetic, a bit distracted, risk taking kind of person you can totally type him as both 7 and SLI or LIE! As well as IEE or ILE.And if you are an LIE you should be an E8, not an E7.
No 7 description in fact says that a seven is: punctual or unpunctual, organized or not organized, and here you can add al the typical J P kind of stuff
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I've seen interviews of Milla Jovovich, and I've come to the conclusion that Rick is wrong about her being an LSE. I see Fe, whether she values it or not. She is certainly not Fe role.Milla Jovovich : LSE-2
I see IP temperament from the outset, which practically contradicts EJ, as it's the complete opposite. She's far more likely to be a Four than an LSE. What made you come to the conclusion that she was LSE?Greta Garbo : LSE-4
I was using that as a comparison with LSE Four. I see LSE and Four as almost completely contradictory, in the same was I see EII and Eight as almost completely contradictory.I've never wrote that EII Eights existed.
Or maybe she's just an E1 who tries to display lots of because it's fuckin' girly.
Even "pushy" EII's tend to be E6.
But I don't see how is LSE-4 contradictory.
...Or maybe she's just an E1 who tries to display lots of because it's fuckin' girly.
I don't understand where you get that notion from at all.
And if 59% of seventy-two socionists said she was Beta NF; what would you say then?On a Celebrity Benchmark she's been typed LSE by 100% of 4 socionists. I think that's quite reliable.
Explain why you think she's a Four.
Okay, perhaps not contradictory, but it makes no sense to me. The typical Four is an IEI; how could another Four value the exact opposite of this? Fours are characterised by their need for artistic self-expression and their typical interest in mysticism and the esoteric, which, as Ni PoLR individuals, LSEs couldn't give a shit about. It's beyond them. I just find the concept of Greta Garbo's being a Four a complete head-fuck. You don't even need logic to show that it's not true; you can just say it isn't, because it so obviously isn't.But I don't see how is LSE-4 contradictory.
I have no qualms with Sevens who are Si types. It makes perfect sense, as I described to Fabio.Seven is quite rare. ESE's and SLI's may be E7, but globally, they're mostly EP types, with a few EJ or IJ exceptions.
I don't think she fits ESE. Her movements aren't "expressive" but rather machine-like. She's more like than . LSE's look like robots.
She's either -+- or -+0.
Not all Fours fit this fuckin' IEI stereotype. Though most Fours are IEI's, some Fours look like rednecks, pretty much like this :
You can notice the hostile nature (S-) and the lack of motivation (D-) of this caricature.
Other Fours look like observers (ILI's), and may be mistyped as Fives.
Other Fours may even look like drama queens, and may look like CP Sixes.
Not all Fours are IEI's. That's shitfuck. However, you're not wrong, because only one case isn't enough to validate the existence of such LSE's.
However I don't give a shitfuck
ah, fwiw, i do agree with most of the stuff machintruc wrote. i do think she looks and comes off as rather emotionless despite some apparent high excitability, which imo isn't anything that doesn't fit well with having an IJ-Fi dual ("His most important capability is his ability to adapt to his partner’s emotions, to empathize, release emotional tension, to calm down.") i think that's fine for milla.
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
@Machintruc: I thought IEI 4s were rednecks, because I'm certain you've said that either 4s or IEIs or the 4-6-8 triad, or all of the above are rednecks before. It's seems that you arbitrarily define all sorts of people as rednecks whenever it suits you. I realize this is "bold" and "shocking" of you.
Oops, I skimmed too much.
Fine. How is Milla Jovovich a Two?
And Fours can be Extratims. EIEs and IEEs - I bet some of them are Fours.
Isn't the enneagram a theory of nurture not nature? I mean don't our enneagram types stem from things in our childhood?
We simply know that most of our personality traits, the most fundamental differences that we study in Socionics, the Enneagram, the Big Five, etc., are all nature. The types they describe, the behaviours they describe, are correct, but the theoretical explanations for them are false.