Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
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.
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.
I have a friend who's ENFj AND a 9w1... put that in your pipe and smoke it!!
socio: INFp - IEI
ennea: 4w5 sp/sx
**********
Originally Posted by Mark Twain
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.
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.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
Originally Posted by implied
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
Last edited by FDG; 08-08-2008 at 12:01 PM.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
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.
Every ENTj is an 8, and every ISFj is a 6, so of course every ENTj knows what their dual is in the Enneagram.
.
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.
Phaedrus, I no longer have any respect for your Cause or for you as an Individual.
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.
In order for that to be true, there are two prerequesites:But if a socionic type fits perfectly into one of the Enneatypes
- 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.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
.
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.Originally Posted by FDG
No. The only prerequisite is that every socionic type description of a type refers to the same real type. And that is the case.Originally Posted by FDG
The same is true here.Originally Posted by FDG
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.Originally Posted by FDG
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.Originally Posted by Diana
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.Originally Posted by Diana
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.
Man Phaedrus, you really need to have an ANVIL dropped on your head. Quit posting your inane bullshit.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.
...
Last edited by Suomea; 09-27-2008 at 11:59 PM.
Suomea