Can an SLI and an EIE be the same Enneagram type?
What do you think?
Can an SLI and an EIE be the same Enneagram type?
What do you think?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Of course, there is everyone's favourite Enneagram type; the Six. I think you could definitely find an SLI Six and an EIE Six.
Concerning other types, machintruc claims that he knows of an example of an SLI Three, and I doubt he'd doubt the existence of an EIE Three. I doubt he does know of a correctly type SLI Three, but the possibility remains. Some may argue for the existence of a SLI Seven and an EIE Seven. Perhaps the same goes for Eight. Past this, I see it as very, very unlikely.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Reductio. (It's the only logical technique I know of that sounds like a Harry Potter spell.)
Originally Posted by Logos
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
There is no definite formal proof, of course, but you can try demonstrate its ridiculousness and unlikelihood.
The enneagram types have at least one dimension along the four dichotomies that is very obvious: Every 1 is a J, every 2 is an F, every 3 is an E, every 4 is an N, every 5 is an IT, every 6 is ... well, this is not as clear as some of the other types, but most of the 6s are certainly IJs (ISFj is the prototypical type), every 7 is a P, every 8 is an E, and every 9 is an IP. You can probably make finer distinctions than that, and for example say that every 8 is not only an E but also a T. And you can say that every 4 is not only an N but also an F and most likely also an I. So, if you want to claim that an SLI and an ESFj can be the same type in the Enneagram, you have to find a place for them where they can exist together without ceasing to exist -- it must make sense and be in line with the four dimensions.
The Four's major concern with individuality seems to go against Si base, and for a type who sees so much importance in personal expression, Te creative seems even more unlikely. I'd be very interested to hear someone's case for an SLI Four, explaining how the kind of creativity of and the strong emotional expression of the Four resonates with extremely dry, peaceful, go-with-the-flow character of the SLI.
I see little problem in a Four's being an EIE. Although they're more likely to be of the IP temperament (and thus IEI), this is still a possibility.
Well that's just on the outside, of course. I will speak for myself but I think that most other SLIs are also very different on the inside, having a rich and emotionally vivid (and vulnerable) inner world. I do recognize my super-ego functions in type 4 descriptions, but they are still explained in a way I can relate to them. I also have a huge inclination towards creativity and strong emotional expression, thru art forms for example, while still preserving my relatively dry, peaceful and pleasure seeking character.
I don't see a reason for this to be true.The Four's major concern with individuality seems to go against Si base, and for a type who sees so much importance in personal expression, Te creative seems even more unlikely.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
I definetly agree with this. You worded that well. For the longest time I typed myself a 4 but in general, 6 is the only one that was completely accurate across the board.Well that's just on the outside, of course. I will speak for myself but I think that most other SLIs are also very different on the inside, having a rich and emotionally vivid (and vulnerable) inner world. I do recognize my super-ego functions in type 4 descriptions, but they are still explained in a way I can relate to them. I also have a huge inclination towards creativity and strong emotional expression, thru art forms for example, while still preserving my relatively dry, peaceful and pleasure seeking character.
Based on what you say here, in combination with the information in your signature, we can conclude that you cannot be an ESTp. Among the remaing three types the one that fits the 6 best is the ISTj, but if it is true that you have identified rather strongly with type 4 in the past, you cannot really be an ISTj either. That leaves us with ISTp or INTp as the two most likely types (again only based on the information I have access to right here and right now).
If you are an INTp you should identify most with type 5, and since you don't seem to do that the likelihood for ISTp increases. On the other hand, the INTp is closer than the ISTp to type 4. Type 6 is not a perfect type for any of those two types, but type 6 is an S type, which increases the likelihood for ISTp again. And since both the INTp and the ISTp are IP types, you should identify with the described behaviour of type 9 to at least some not too insignificant extent, and if you don't do that, then there is something clearly wrong with your typing in at least one of these two models.
hi jess
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
You may be interested in this. There's a lot about creative expression here.
You still think you are SLI, yes?Originally Posted by Riso & Hudson
Phaedrus, I think your thinking is too narrow. You make it seem as if certain possibilities are implausible, when they're quite plausible. For example, what's wrong with a Six identifying with the ILI? And why can't a Five be an SLI?
Some ILIs could probably identify with type Six to some extent, but type Five is without doubt the natural home for the ILI. And I have never said that an SLI can't be a Five. That is probably one of the best boxes to put the SLI in, due to the many similarities between SLIs and ILIs, especially their Fe PoLR and Fi HA. If we go by test results combined with an attempt to find a correlation between Enneagram types and Socionics functions, we probably should put the SLI in box Five.
I have posted my view on the best fits before, but I could do it again for clarity's sake.
Ones are leading
Twos are leading
Threes are leading
Fours are and sometimes -- they are INFs
Fives are creative and most typically also leading
Sixes are leading and most often also creative
Sevens are leading
Eights are leading
Nines are leading and most often also creative
If we want to, there is nothing to prevent us from choosing to define the Enneagram even more narrowly. We can decide to say that every SLI must be a Five, etc. Their is nothing in the Ennegram that rules such a course of action out, and it would actually make the Enneagram system more elegant.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
That is the whole article.
You might want to sign up for free and read about the other misidentifications.
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/misid/#matrix
Phaedrus, I still think you're a Ti ego type.
Why's this thread in the classical socionics section?
I see Te more than anything else. If you think he is Ti why not give us some examples?
Himself; he thinks he's an ILI. misutii thinks the same. And when I said Ti type, I mean someone who is Ti ego, not just Ti valuing.
I once asked a similar question, and someone told me I was a Ti ego type.
Isha and niffweed (I too used to think this).
The basis of most of his arguments rely on his view of the types, which he likes to think is completely objective, and he pays a lot of attention to his logic and to the rationale of his argument, in typical Ti ego fashion. What makes people think he is not a logical type is that when you confront him with a direct question about the facts, he'll often ignore you, as if he has no answer for it, and when he challenges your position, he'll often offer little or no valid reasoning as to why you should change your position in some way. Personally, I view this as more to do with the fact that he's less interested in trying to logically convince you of his arguments and reasoning as he is in trying to convince himself. The only other explanation is that Ti is less important to him than, say, another function (i.e. another possible ego function), which would make him an ILE or an SLE, and this I highly doubt.
Yeah yeah, I know all that, you didn't have to write it.
Hahaha, you make me laugh hard sometimes.
Cause threads here get more attention than in "Alternative or Non-socionic Based Type theories" and the topic still fits partially and doesn't stand out much. Now what's YOUR problem with it?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Originally Posted by Gilly
Your Global 5 result, your MBTI result, your Keirsey result ... you name it. The only thing you can point to in support of SLE is your own subjective (mis)understanding of the function and what some other members on this forum have told you. Every data that is not polluded by misinterpretations suggests LIE/ENTJ as the obvious type for you.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
That's a misuse of language. How can they possibly be inferior? How can you compare functions with a typing method? Your understanding of how relates to your own type is a total mess. Your test results are clear and immensely superior to any of your functions analyses.
You have either a totally deluded understanding of -- or you have a totally deluded understanding of your own behaviour. Which one is it?Originally Posted by Ezra
[] | NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Actually, I thought my analysis of the Jungian function's in conjunction with Augusta's was pretty good.
I guess you believe the reason test results are better is because they are objective and clearly defined, whereas my mind doesn't quite grasp the concept of Se. Well, I could say the same to you. Face the facts, and stop denying simple shit that doesn't fit in with your own world view.
My understanding of my own behaviour is good, as is my understanding of Se. Where does that leave you?You have either a totally deluded understanding of -- or you have a totally deluded understanding of your own behaviour. Which one is it?
You contradict yourself. You believe that you are a J type in one model, and you believe that you are a P type in another model. You believe that you are an extraverted thinking type in one model, and you believe that you are an extraverted sensing type in another model. The four scales are nearly identical, and yet you see nothing wrong with the odd typing in this -- your typing as SLE in Socionics. ENTJ is perfectly consistent with your test result in Global 5 and all your other test results as well. The only thing it is not consistent with the rest is your claim that you are an irrational type in Socionics, namely the SLE. If you don't realize that you can't get those test results if you
1. Are SLE
2. Have a good understanding of your own behaviour
then you are deluded.