Who's your enneagram dual?

[Logos]

No, that's not the reason.

You're right. It's because you're an idiot.

[Phaedrus]

You're right. It's because you're an idiot.

I don't care if I am an idiot or not as long as I am right. And that I am right on this is a fact.

[Enters Laughing]

9s are certainly not the most typical optimists, and ISFps are certainly not the most typical pessimists. You don't seem to understand what it means to be a Negativist in the Reinin dichotomies. It does not equal being a pessimist, and neither does being a Positivist equal being an optimist.

If you have to be strict with definitions, then someone who agreed completely with the Reinin description of Negativism could not be described as an optimist.

[Logos]

I don't care if I am an idiot or not as long as I am right. And that I am right on this is a fact.

You keep throwing around the word fact so loosely. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Enters Laughing]

I don't care if I am an idiot or not as long as I am right. And that I am right on this is a fact.

We think you act like an idiot and we know you're wrong, but at least you're right.

[Phaedrus]

If you have to be strict with definitions, then someone who agreed completely with the Reinin description of Negativism could not be described as an optimist.

Of course not. But that is not what I said. Negatism and Pessimism are still two different things, and you cannot determine for sure whether a person is a Negativist or a Positivist by looking at how the person is positioned along the Optimism/Pessimism scale.

[Phaedrus]

You keep throwing around the word fact so loosely. I do not think it means what you think it means.

If you have a personal, subjective definition of the word "fact", then you will misunderstand me of course. I use it as it should be used, that is I use the word "fact" correctly. I am an expert on what words like "fact", "knowledge", and "truth" means, and I have explained their correct use in detail many times on this forum. I don't feel like doing it again.

[Enters Laughing]

Of course not. But that is not what I said. Negatism and Pessimism are still two different things, and you cannot determine for sure whether a person is a Negativist or a Positivist by looking at how the person is positioned along the Optimism/Pessimism scale.

So I suppose that's part one of about ten thousand comparisons between the ISFp and type Nine descriptions.

[Phaedrus]

This thread makes me cry. But I won't prelong the inevitable. It's foolish to be in denial. I must be a 9 if Phaedrus says so, because he is always right.

I haven't said that you must be 9. It is only true that you must be a 9 if you are an SEI. If you are not a 9, then you are not an SEI either. This is a totally redundant discussion. How can you not know for sure which type you are? If you are a 9, then you must have an IP temperament, and you also must have an IP temperament if you are an SEI. If you don't have an IP temperament, then it is totally impossible for you to be an SEI, and it is equally impossible for you to be a 9. And every 2 has an EJ temperament, so if you knew that you were a 2, you would automatically know that you were not an SEI.

[aka-kitsune]

I have a friend who's ENFj AND a 9w1... put that in your pipe and smoke it!!

[Phaedrus]

I have a friend who's ENFj AND a 9w1... put that in your pipe and smoke it!!

Liar.

[redbaron]

Liar.

what do you mean you don't have a pipe?

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, why do you keep trying to overlay the enneagram precisely onto socionics?

I am not trying anything. I only describe the truth about the Ennegram and its correlation with the socionic types.

[Slacker]

If you have a personal, subjective definition of the word "fact", then you will misunderstand me of course. I use it as it should be used, that is I use the word "fact" correctly. I am an expert on what words like "fact", "knowledge", and "truth" means, and I have explained their correct use in detail many times on this forum. I don't feel like doing it again.

Oh god. When are you going to gain some level of maturity?

[Phaedrus]

Yeah, there might be some correlations. Why do two personality theories have to model EXACTLY the same things though? Isn't that a little redundant?

If you put two different socionic types in the same group, for example if you claim that some other type than the ISFj can be a 6 in the Enneagram, then you have to explain exactly what that other type has in common with the ISFj and also why that similarity is relevant and why it is sufficient to make it correct to say that the ISFj is the same type as some other (socionic) type.

[Expat]

The enneatype that fits me best is 8, although by no means as well as socionics's LIE.

I'd think that my own dual would have to be 1 or 6.

[Phaedrus]

I'd think that my own dual would have to be 1 or 6.

Your dual is definitely type 6. But that you suggest type 1 as a possible dual is an indication that you understand the Enneagram types correctly.

[FDG]

9s, most definitely. 9w1 over 9w8 probably I think

I can also imagine 1 as a type I can be compatible with, but we both have to be very healthy

least compatible: 3, then 8

[Joy]

I seem to draw 6's to me, and I get along with them quite well. Most of my friends have been 6's, and the two best relationships I've had have been with 6w5's.

I'm pretty sure my first husband was a 1, and there were constant power struggles... so definitely not 1. 9's and 2's are the least attractive to me. I tend to have a difficult time respecting 3's motivations. 4's are okay... I have a sort of "not my thing, but it's cool" way of looking at them. 5's are too distant to make me feel completely secure in relationships, and there can be difficulties in initiating/maintaining relationships/friendships with them because neither of us is particularly good at it. 7's are similar to 4's. I can relate to 8's, but over the years I have had power struggles with a few people who I think were probably 8's.

[Phaedrus]

Every ENTj is an 8, and every ISFj is a 6, so of course every ENTj knows what their dual is in the Enneagram.

[redbaron]

blahblahblah, blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

6 goes into 9 perfectly.

dirty

[Phaedrus]

16 goes into 9 perfectly. And there are no remainders.

16 are more than 9. Exactly how stupid are you if you believe that 1 of 16 fits into more than 1 of 9 types?

[FDG]

16 are more than 9. Exactly how stupid are you if you believe that 1 of 16 fits into more than 1 of 9 types?

There's no written rule that says otherwise, and there is no way to prove otherwise. She (we) might be wrong, but there is no way to prove us wrong with certainty, so it's probable that your usage of the word truth is incorrect.

[Joy]

16 are more than 9. Exactly how stupid are you if you believe that 1 of 16 fits into more than 1 of 9 types?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=facetious

[Phaedrus]

There's no written rule that says otherwise, and there is no way to prove otherwise.

There is no written rule, but it can certainly be proven.

She (we) might be wrong, but there is no way to prove us wrong with certainty, so it's probable that your usage of the word truth is incorrect.

Now you too are starting to confuse the concept truth with the concept knowledge.

[Joy]

Phaedrus, are you saying that since there are 16 socionics types and 9 enneagram types, that an enneagram type must correlate to more than one socionics type, but that each socionics type can correlate to only one enneagram type?

[Phaedrus]

Phaedrus, are you saying that since there are 16 socionics types and 9 enneagram types, that an enneagram type must correlate to more than one socionics type, but that each socionics type can correlate to only one enneagram type?

No. But if a socionic type fits perfectly into one of the Enneatypes, then that socionic type can be only that Enneatype. That is the case with the ISFj, since it fits perfectly into type 6 and since there is no other Enneagram type that fits the ISFj better than type 6. So every ISFj is necessarily a 6.

[Enters Laughing]

Phaedrus, I no longer have any respect for your Cause or for you as an Individual.

[Joy]

No. But if a socionic type fits perfectly into one of the Enneatypes, then that socionic type can be only that Enneatype. That is the case with the ISFj, since it fits perfectly into type 6 and since there is no other Enneagram type that fits the ISFj better than type 6. So every ISFj is necessarily a 6.

You know, I think they make a pill for that.

[FDG]

There is no written rule, but it can certainly be proven.

I would like to know how. The original enneagram sources do not provide any certain and inconfutable link between neurochemistry and enneagram types. The types are an inherently nebulous concept because the tradition of the enneagram inserts itself into a paradigm which is definitely more spritualistic than scientific. From this lack of clarity (that can, in many cases, be a strenght - especially in terms of commercial appeal) comes the difficulty in ascertaining clear-cut connections between the enneagram types and other psychological theories.

But if a socionic type fits perfectly into one of the Enneatypes

In order for that to be true, there are two prerequesites:
- that every socionic type description of a type fits perfectly every other socionic description of the given type
- that every ennegram type description fits perfectly every other enneagram description of the given type

these prerequisites have not been satisfied yet by the two theories, so the only absolute we can proclaim is that no absolute claim can be made on the connection between the two items.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Phaedrus]

The original enneagram sources do not provide any certain and inconfutable link between neurochemistry and enneagram types. The types are an inherently nebulous concept because the tradition of the enneagram inserts itself into a paradigm which is definitely more spritualistic than scientific.

Absolutely correct. The Enneagram is a false theory of the types. But it still does describe the types fairly well.

From this lack of clarity (that can, in many cases, be a strenght - especially in terms of commercial appeal) comes the difficulty in ascertaining clear-cut connections between the enneagram types and other psychological theories.

Yes, it's not very easy, but it can be done. And I have done it.

In order for that to be true, there are two prerequesites:
- that every socionic type description of a type fits perfectly every other socionic description of the given type

No. The only prerequisite is that every socionic type description of a type refers to the same real type. And that is the case.

- that every ennegram type description fits perfectly every other enneagram description of the given type

The same is true here.

these prerequisites have not been satisfied yet by the two theories, so the only absolute we can proclaim is that no absolute claim can be made on the connection between the two items.

Wrong. We only have to study, analyze, and compare the types in two diffrent type theories. That can be done. And it has been done -- by me. And some conclusions are clear, and they have been drawn.

[aestrivex]

Absolutely correct. The Enneagram is a false theory of the types. But it still does describe the types fairly well.


Yes, it's not very easy, but it can be done. And I have done it.


No. The only prerequisite is that every socionic type description of a type refers to the same real type. And that is the case.


The same is true here.


Wrong. We only have to study, analyze, and compare the types in two diffrent type theories. That can be done. And it has been done -- by me. And some conclusions are clear, and they have been drawn.

尬尪寏寍嫋

[Phaedrus]

False premise. "The" ISFj is not a person. It's a categorization of how some people process information. The way this manifests into behavior and various quirks is contigent on the person, not the type. I personally am more 1 like in my approach than 6 like.

If you are an ISFj you are a 6. End of story. Type 1 is logical, type 6 is ethical. The ISFj is ethical. So the ISFj is not a 1.

I'm not anxious and worried all the time like a 6, and instead am more likely to when I feel it's needed (which isn't extremely often), to follow a specific protocol or plan so things will work out and I don't have to worry.

So you are not anxious and worried all the time like an ISFj. Are you not aware of the fact that ISFjs are described as anxious and worried all time, just as the 6 is? Don't you know your own type? Don't you realize that there is NO difference here between how a 6 and how an ISFj is described when it comes to being worried and anxious? I am sick of people's stupid ignorance about the types. You damn fool. Study the types.

I can at times somewhat anally stick to that plan, making me seem very 1 like, with the perfectionism and all that. But honestly, neither one fits me perfectly. I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with anger like is described of 1s. The 1 fits a lot better than the 6 though. The 6 just sounds. . . neurotic.

It is very typical of ISFjs to complain about the ISFj type descriptions. You don't want to identify with who you really are, because you find the type descriptions boring. ISFjs are described as boring and over-cautious. Well, you just have to accept it or try to write a better type descriptions. There is no difference between a 6 and an ISFj in the respects you have mentioned. Deal with it.

[aestrivex]

If you are an ISFj you are a 6. End of story. Type 1 is logical, type 6 is ethical. The ISFj is ethical. So the ISFj is not a 1.


So you are not anxious and worried all the time like an ISFj. Are you not aware of the fact that ISFjs are described as anxious and worried all time, just as the 6 is? Don't you know your own type? Don't you realize that there is NO difference here between how a 6 and how an ISFj is described when it comes to being worried and anxious? I am sick of people's stupid ignorance about the types. You damn fool. Study the types.


It is very typical of ISFjs to complain about the ISFj type descriptions. You don't want to identify with who you really are, because you find the type descriptions boring. ISFjs are described as boring and over-cautious. Well, you just have to accept it or try to write a better type descriptions. There is no difference between a 6 and an ISFj in the respects you have mentioned. Deal with it.

墬囍唪凭兦冀

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

None. The enneagram intertype relationships always try to be more complicated/complex than simple dual/conflictors. I don't see the correlation. Closest I can see is that integration/disintegration dichotomy thing.

If you are an ISFj you are a 6. End of story. Type 1 is logical, type 6 is ethical. The ISFj is ethical. So the ISFj is not a 1.

Man Phaedrus, you really need to have an ANVIL dropped on your head. Quit posting your inane bullshit.

[Suomea]

...

[Phaedrus]

Man Phaedrus, you really need to have an ANVIL dropped on your head. Quit posting your inane bullshit.

No. Stop being an idiot.