My typeup for discussion

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Hi Mimosa, do you find yourself someone who can spend long times in periods of inactivity, not really doing anything? Do you tend not to initiate changes or activities yourself, generally happy with go with the flow?

Or do you find that you are pretty much always doing things, always keeping busy? Do you find the need to create things happening, and get bored easily if things aren't changing, and initiate those changes yourself?

Try to think which one is really you, rather than what you'd like to be or how you behave only on occasion, say at work.

[Jarno]

What my husband meant when he said I never relax, is that I never relax mentally.

I think that the question however referred to relax physically.

The rest of your answer pointed again towards introversion. Especially the part about having, but not liking to initiate and rather have other people ask you to participate with activities. That is a much used example of introversion in socionics dichotomies.

[unefille]

I identify with both example 1 and 2, particularly the whole 'reading people' and then having awkward conversations. I actually think it's because of the Fe - I'm hypersensitive to signs that people don't like me or we're not connecting. If I had less Fe - and was say, an E8 - I think I would be more 'extroverted' by being able to barrage on relentlessly and having conversations without any 'awkward' oh my god, I can't say that to them, what now??! moment.

The difference between me and my IEI friends is that in a social situation, they seem more comfortable with just hanging back and not 'initiating' for the sake of it. In contrast -- I feel this urge like I have to reach out and be friendly and make the first move -- and I won't always know how to, and I'll start running through 'various strategies' in my head and I'll feel more awkward, because my instinct is that I shouldn't be hanging back - I should be extending greetings and I then overthink the moment...and it gets crazy. Just in the last few years (I'm 21) since high school, I've gotten infinitely better at this whole social thing - and being Fe-base helps -- but it's more because I feel the compulsion to be the one that puts others at ease socially that I've learnt to be more socially adept and charming, then because I have natural inborn skills of conversing etc. I mean, I was an only child who was a loner -- for most of my childhood, I spend more time on my own then with other people -- conversation with people other than myself was something I've definitely had to learn.

[unefille]

Also -- I've been thinking: the whole looking back at myself and subjectivising myself -- that's much more of a 3ish way of accessing the self than necessarily an extrovert thing.

[Phaedrus]

I think most of what I have described here is introversion also according to this definition?

Yes. It also smells Ni. Compare Jung's description of the nature of Introverted Intuition and Introverted Intuitives near the end of this text:

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Jung/types.htm

[unefille]

OK. So it's an NF-thing then, probably. Damn. I just thought I had understood it all. lol

On the other hand, I don't feel stressed out when it comes to initiating anything in social settings the way you explain. You made me think of my ESE-mother, and she's ...... stressful. (no offense!!! )

lol sorry, I realise that I seem to generally follow you around and go 'no! I identify with that!' and thus making typing yourself harder -- but it's true and I do genuinely identify.

Like, idolatrie has this idea that if there were no people in my life, I would probably stop 'eating' real food and just live off cereal or something, because I make events into 'social things' - but on the other, I have days when I'm on my own and I think, ok, alone today -- and I wander through cafes/libraries alone and I don't want to be noticed -- I want to slip beneath the veil of visibility, to drift, to wonder, to simply be. To kind of....settle, like sand in a vessel settles if you stop shaking it.

I'm not really stressed in social situations - I just think more than I act, but that's pretty standard for me as well. Also, the need to initiate isn't very...stressful, so much as a reflex. Oh - person - must greet them - that kind of thing. I won't go out of my way though. Like in an elevator, I smile and nod at everyone coming in, but I don't really bother to start conversations. Some people do and I respond and I can be very warm and chatty, but I'm not the type to engage everyone for the sake of it -- I don't have to that much to say to strangers, really.

[Phaedrus]

I actually relate to that part to a painful degree.

Why painful? Can you elaborate? When I first read Jung's description of Ni it sounded strange, alien, obscure. Now I think that I can see more clearly what it refers to, but I also think that Jung didn't really understand introverted intuitives. He describes it as an observer, from a perspective.

This is still mostly an uninvestigated area of Socionics, as far as I know. Many socionists believe that Jung was himself an introverted intuitive, an ILI, but I am convinced that they are mistaken. Jung was a LII. So what is this really about?

Jung wrote a lot about dreams, archetypes, etc., but he did that mostly as a "scientist" (though not in my sense of a scientist), from a theoretical perspective. A highly tentative hypothesis is that there might be a difference here, that an introverted intuitive is using, in a more natural way without theorizing, the things Jung is trying to explain. The introverted intuitive is not so much interested in explaining these things, since its a way of perceiving, a way of looking at the world.

So what exactly do you relate to?

[Gilly]

I actually relate to that part to a painful degree.

Actually that description has little/nothing to do with Socionics Ni. Jung != Socionics. The cubic model is your best bet.

[Jarno]

Actually that description has little/nothing to do with Socionics Ni. Jung != Socionics. The cubic model is your best bet.

Where can I read something about the cubic model. I can't find anything with google.

[Gilly]

Rick's website has the definitions.

[strrrng]

lol @ dismissing Jung because it doesn't fit the paradigm. Stop confining reality.

[Gilly]

lol @ dismissing Jung because it doesn't fit the paradigm. Stop confining reality.

Stop confining reality? lol...if that's your argument, stop practicing categorical interpretation of human perception.

I discount Jung because Socionics has a very rigid set of definitions as to what constitutes each function, and I am of the opinion that they accomplish their purpose without borrowing anything beyond names from Jung. Inane vagueries need not apply.

[kensi]

Hi Kensi!

Here are my answers.

1. I'm some NF

2. I'm not sure what you mean about warm and cold, but I'll base my answer on my own definitions of it. I hope you'll understand what you want to know from it. I'm a warm person. I smile a lot at people, I look at them, I notice them. I'm always open to listen to them if they need it, and give my advice if they ask it. People have often commented on how "warm" or "soft" I seem.

3. I'm pretty sure I'm warm most of the time, even though I can be more shy in the beginning, and get caught up in daily life after a while. I'll always give of warmth anyway, I feel.
(EDIT: From the inside of me, I feel as thought I have a steady flame burning. It's not high, but very warm, somehow.)

I'm not sure I answered your questions the way you wanted? Please don't hesitate to ask me other questions.

All indications appear to tell me that you are an NF type with an SF subtype. I think it is rather easy for an NF to look at themselves and say "hey you know what... i think i'm an NF of sorts" (aka..."i know it is highly unlikely i am ST cause i dont use this combo enough"). So your Swing Type is NF-F subtype. I have always had an NF-T Swing Type....hence i would get a lot of tests results that would indicate either TiNe or NeTi as my type....even though i know that directly i am highly unlikely to be such a type on a comparitive basis to my peers.

OK now you need to figure out your temperamental prefernce using the referential system of Pi,Ji,Pe, and Je...but this i find is not easy to do. I think it is possible for people to use a combination of these. Sorry but at the moment i cannot help you here. I'll have to check out what else you have to say and see if i can pick up on an obvious clue.

[strrrng]

Stop confining reality? lol...if that's your argument, stop practicing categorical interpretation of human perception.

I discount Jung because Socionics has a very rigid set of definitions as to what constitutes each function, and I am of the opinion that they accomplish their purpose without borrowing anything beyond names from Jung. Inane vagueries need not apply.

Defining functions isn't confining reality; relying solely on one framework is. Stop twisting semantics. If a phenomena exists, explaining it in a (complete) theory only enhances the reality. The fact that socionics' definitions are "very rigid" should tell you something right there. But to each his own.

[Phaedrus]

(I definitely feel I'm more of an observer (most of the time) - that is why I feel there is no possibility I'm Ej-temperamental. )

And I think that to be an observer, to observe even your own thought processes and feelings in the way Jung tries to describe the introverted intuitives, is part of the very essence of .

("I'm just an observer. I can't help what I see" - I never ever thought about this before, but it's how I am to a large degree. The "bodily existence"-part explains why I thought I need Si (as I thought I was IEE). And I definitely need to be more careful about my health. I have a pneumonia at the moment because of being too occupied with some mental images one night to notice I was dead cold - took me half a day to feel warm again. lol)

I also think that leading types (INFps and INTps) tend to favour a l'art pour l'art approach to writing that can be contrasted to the more politically oriented works of arts that for example INTjs tend to produce. As a sidenote to that, I happen to believe (after having made a rather thorough research including reading a two volume biography) that Honoré de Balzac is mistyped and that he was not an ILI, despite him being used as a prototype example of an ILI. But Balzac, as he is described in the literature, simply doesn't fit the criteria for being an ILI, and he was most likely an extraverted type.

(true. I know truths about myself, but I constantly have problems bringing my wants into the world. I thought of that as an E9-problem, as it's the "morality" (knowing that other's want other things than I do) that stop me from doing what I know is true to me, and instead do what is "right" in their eyes.)

That is not only an E9 problem. It is also a problem for E4s for example, or for an E5 like myself for that matter.

(such experiences (at it's extreme, ofc), for example when watching stars, have been what I have thought of as Si-moments. Reading this makes me believe I was wrong, and probably don't understand Si at all(?))

I don't know what it actually feels like to experience such things for an leading type, but what you describe is not at all uncommon for leading types. Some people tend to be much prone to attribute themes to that can just as correctly be seen as the creations of an leading type.

Indre bilder

skaper
Livet
Mal

sakte

And this poem has a rather typical "touch" to it.

(I feel criticized here. I don't connect to this completely. I think there are immediate uses of this, but it's not always easy to bring out. That's part of what I talked about when we discussed my enneatype, and I said "I'd like to merge "me" and "my outer personality"" and when I said "I find it hard to bring "me" into the world". I definitely use intuition at work, but I don't feel that all of "I" is a good personality when it comes to my line of work - in business/ economy - I'm both too "soft" and too "philosophical". I use my intuition in project management a lot, and I'll always know all phases of a project instinctively immediately to a degree that tend to baffle others, so parts of my intuition are great also at work.)

I think that the criticism is justified from a more rational, utility oriented, "normal" perspective on life. I can understand it. That's probably how many of us leading types are perceived by other people, and it might be true that we are most useful to humanity in the role of poets, writers, artists, etc. We have a different way of looking at the world, and that different perspective has a value, indirectly, to normal people, even if they are not immediately and consciously aware of it. But it is true that we are often misunderstood and perceived as less capable than we really are, because people in general have difficulty seeing what we can be used for, what we can contribute with.

[krieger]

... the more politically oriented works of arts that for example INTjs tend to produce.

Can you elaborate on this...? Which (specific) people and which works are you talking about here?

[Gilly]

Defining functions isn't confining reality; relying solely on one framework is. Stop twisting semantics. If a phenomena exists, explaining it in a (complete) theory only enhances the reality. The fact that socionics' definitions are "very rigid" should tell you something right there. But to each his own.

Nick, I acknowledge that your observations and typings may very well have significant basis and perhaps point to some other kind of likeness, but, to put it simply, you do not practice Socionics.

[Phaedrus]

Can you elaborate on this...? Which (specific) people and which works are you talking about here?

Maybe my statement is to bold, maybe there are exceptions, but all the INTjs I have talked to in real life have had this more or less conscious intention to somehow make a difference politically/socially in what they do. As pointed out be many socionists, the INTj is focused on implementing his logical program, putting his raster onto the world and interpreting things in that perspective. As Stratiyevskaya says, "Robespierre is always politically active (a quality inherent in all representatives of the first and the second quadra). He always disturbs the problems of society, in which he lives, disturbs the social- humanita­rian problems of his environment." (The machine translation can probably be even more improved than what I have done here.) Since I have never encountered any counter example, I have more or less taken this truth for granted.

A natural consequence of this is probably that INTjs tend to stay away from art in most cases. Poetry is not their natural home, that I think is for sure, but in the Swedish writer P. C Jersild we have a rather clear example of an INTj that is writing about problems related to society and contemporary life. There is always a rather clear message in Jersild's works, and that message is either of philosophical significance or of political significance. One can quite easily see that the plots are planned beforehand, that there is very little room for the mystical, the unexpected. It is as if the texts express a certain stiffness and rigidity, as if the ideas behind them are too worked out, too obvious. It is not bad literature, but in my opinion the texts are rather limited and can never reach the level of a genius, it's much more like a good handicraft without deep imagination. The same can of course be said bout the works of Dan Brown, whom Rick has typed as INTj. I havent' done any thorough typing of Brown myself, but INTj makes sense.

[Wittmont]

Painful because parts of the text felt like being criticized by my parents. I felt almost sick when reading. I don't want to go into details, but it has a lot to do with things we discussed when talking about my enneatype. Some examples:

As you understand, the painful part is probably more linked to my enneatype than socionics type.

I've read this thread with great interest. As a fellow IEI I identify with much of what you are saying Mimosa.

I think 'we', using the we as a fellow IEI, are objecting here to Jung's heavy use of J. And it is indeed painful to be dismissed like that grrrrrr. He has a point about 'fruitlessness' yes, it can be that in it's unhealthy aspect; but he also misses the mark with a huge margin. I think the enneagram is far more accurate here in stressing the positive aspects as well of healthy people

I find most of Jung's descriptions alien and obscure, lol. But I am quite familiar with his explanations, and that helps, of course. I relate to the way he describes the inner "flow". It's there, but it moves. I can't stop it nor really pin it down, I'm the observer.

That being said, I found the explanations almost completely lacking in descriptions when it comes to how this all is brought into the world. It only talked about the "feel" of flow and not about how you tap into it. I think I definitely can bring this into the real world and I definitely can bring the real world into it. I try to do it NOW for instance, by attempting to explain the "flow" by how it "feels" instead of by what it "does". The "does" is the way it would more normally be described by Socionics, I guess?

These observations are very interesting. I agree with your own observation here, and with Phaedrus, that your natural approach is that of the observer, you observe, reflect, then you act.

That you go by 'feel' is typical of intuitive feelers. The 'does' is more the approach of extraverts focusing on objects I suspect.

I'm not even able to type myself, so I certainly won't start typing Jung.

That being said, if we look to the Jungian analytical psychology instead of only talking about personality typing, I find the way Jung describes human psyche corresponding very much to the way I observe my own conscious and unconscious. I also see a LOT of connections to the enneagram (forces/motivations underlying our actions --> how to alter unconsciously controlled actions). I think there are definitely more interesting things to look into when it comes to Jung, that could help people develop instead of saying "it's like that" as if people are only static (I get that feel about socionics at times).

Socionics definitely reduce people into managable little blocks... It lacks the positive aspect of the enneagram for example.

I think there is a LOT of Jung in the enneagram, also that astrology eg has borrowed a lot from him. I must say like the overall Jungian approach to the psyche and how it is constructed. It makes a lot of sense to me as well.

When it comes to socionics theory, I'm no expert, but I'll quote a friend of mine:

I definitely relate to a lot of what Jung says about the human psyche, both archetypes and functions of dreams. I've even tried to type my archetypes, lol. I guess it's more natural for me than for a lot of others to think that way, though, as I haven't found a lot of people even understanding remotely what I'm talking about when I try to explain my thoughts... So I do try to explain, but I loose interest when I feel that other's don't understand me. I like that feel at times. It puzzles me that I see things differently from others. I'm not crazy, I know what I see. However other's might think I am if I tell them.

I am Very curious about how you see things, if they are related to leading Ni in IEI's

The strengths and the weaknesses of the intuition. Of course it is, as I mentioned, a feel of being criticized in this, but it's still quite descriptive. (and of course you have to adjust and wash the interpretations to fit with today's culture and time first. That's a problem I think is typical when it comes to Jung.)

Agree totally. Jung can seem very old fashioned in his cultural approach looked at with modern Scandinavian eyes.

I also relate to the way this is seen from the outside - it's how people sometimes would describe me, if I'm not careful to "hide" what I feel. As I mentioned in the beginning, my parents talked about me (to me) about exactly the things that are written here. It's how they saw me, and they were a little worried.

They should have read more Jung lol

[Wittmont]

(part 2 of my answer)

(I definitely feel I'm more of an observer (most of the time) - that is why I feel there is no possibility I'm Ej-temperamental. )

("I'm just an observer. I can't help what I see" - I never ever thought about this before, but it's how I am to a large degree. The "bodily existence"-part explains why I thought I need Si (as I thought I was IEE). And I definitely need to be more careful about my health. I have a pneumonia at the moment because of being too occupied with some mental images one night to notice I was dead cold - took me half a day to feel warm again. lol)

Yes to both of these observations, you simply don't approach the world the same way an extravert does. That is an useful insight when it comes to typing. I think those that claim that Extraversion/Intraversion has no place in socionics are dead wrong. It is actually one of the founding blocks of socionics. People can look at it from purely an IM point of view and claim the IM's contain the E/I aspect but that is an oversimplification. You do not have an E personality because your lead function is Te,Ne,Se of Fe I see it as the opposite. Children already are E or I and their functions are not yet that developed.

(true. I know truths about myself, but I constantly have problems bringing my wants into the world. I thought of that as an E9-problem, as it's the "morality" (knowing that other's want other things than I do) that stop me from doing what I know is true to me, and instead do what is "right" in their eyes.)

To me, this is a lack of freedom. Nobody should force their own 'morality' onto others. I believe in freedom.

(I have had such feelings all my life... I don't really believe they are true, but I like them. lol.)

(However, I have had experiences you can't easily explain by logics, like predicting death of people when I was a child. People were angry with me, so I stopped telling.)

Yes strong Ni for sure but also Ne or Fe I think. Some extraverted function surely is involved in this as you sense the changing dynamic in the people [extraverted objects] themselves?

(such experiences (at it's extreme, ofc), for example when watching stars, have been what I have thought of as Si-moments. Reading this makes me believe I was wrong, and probably don't understand Si at all(?))

You can have Si with stars too, if they are part of the environment that makes you feel good about yourself.

(This one is difficult for me to swallow, but there is a lot of truth in it, as I tend to forget my observations and thus can't always bring out conclusions. It disappears fast. That's why I write poems - they pin down things I know are true - they are my way of reminding myself of what I have seen. This poem talks about how I have not listened to myself, but just rushed into things others wanted me to. It talks about how I should have listened to what I know before making decisions. It also states that I should not think about finishing my life, but indeed go on. It's an advice to myself for later, when I have forgotten the dreams that made this clear to me (sorry to those not understanding Scandinavian):

Indre bilder

skaper
Livet
Mal

sakte

I like your poems very much Mimosa

(I feel criticized here. I don't connect to this completely. I think there are immediate uses of this, but it's not always easy to bring out. That's part of what I talked about when we discussed my enneatype, and I said "I'd like to merge "me" and "my outer personality"" and when I said "I find it hard to bring "me" into the world". I definitely use intuition at work, but I don't feel that all of "I" is a good personality when it comes to my line of work - in business/ economy - I'm both too "soft" and too "philosophical". I use my intuition in project management a lot, and I'll always know all phases of a project instinctively immediately to a degree that tend to baffle others, so parts of my intuition are great also at work.)

Yes, I think Jung simply lacked this aspect in his imagination to see and think outside the box (and that is interesting that even He, whose Ni was so remarkable was limited in some ways, to me in this case by his J). I think in many ways Ni is perfect for todays fast changing global world. How else keep the finger on the pulse of the times?

And, just to sum it up with something more positive, these quotes kind of talk about my "hope" - I have thought like this as well:

I like the 'hope' parts too. I think Jung should have built more on those tbh. Instead he took a negative approach and that irritates me lol. Why 'fix' something that isn't broken? But he does have very good points in highlighting some of the unhealthy aspects ofc.

As an aside reading Jung's description of Introverted Intuition has convinced me Jung was indeed LII, no Ni leading person would describe Ni with such an unforgiving, heavily Judging, approach; and that Phaedrus is correct in his typing of Jung as LII.

[strrrng]

Nick, I acknowledge that your observations and typings may very well have significant basis and perhaps point to some other kind of likeness, but, to put it simply, you do not practice Socionics.

If by "practicing socionics" you mean working within the established framework of Augusta, then yes, you are correct, I don't practice socionics. I take what is valid and move on; it's silly to confine one's self when the truth lies outside of a limited framework.

[Ezra]

If by "practicing socionics" you mean working within the established framework of Augusta, then yes, you are correct, I don't practice socionics. I take what is valid and move on; it's silly to confine one's self when the truth lies outside of a limited framework.

Then you're not practising socionics as a system. In fact, I'd be tempted to say that you're not actually practising socionics at all, but rather simply drawing from it what you feel is true to reality.

Now, I disagree, because I'm the kind of guy who will either completely accept a system or completely reject it. There is no middle ground. If I like a theory, I will find reasons to explain everything. If I don't, I will shun it in every way I possibly can; I'll find reasons to annihilate it bit by bit.

Some would say my way was foolish; yours, wise. Others vice versa. I'm more inclined towards the explanation that you and I think "differently". I don't think you're wrong as such, but the way you approach socionics is basically incompatible with the way in which I do.

Anyway, back on topic, where are we up to with Mimosa Pudica's type? Has she rejected that she is either a One or an IEE yet? If not, we are still at square one, and something needs to move on, otherwise this thread is a useless mound of shit.

[Ezra]

I failed to see the thread entitled: "I'm an Intuitive Ethical Introvert". Still I doubt she is a One IEI.

[Phaedrus]

Well.. After reading a little more, I have come to the conclusion that 9w1 is more probable than 1w9. But 4w3 isn't all that off neither. So I'm not sure yet...

(And I DO like Se!!! So, there. :wink

An IEI with strong might identify more with type 9, whereas an IEI with strong might identify more with type 4. But those are the only possible types for an IEI to be in the Enneagram.

[strrrng]

Then you're not practising socionics as a system. In fact, I'd be tempted to say that you're not actually practising socionics at all, but rather simply drawing from it what you feel is true to reality.

But that's the whole point: reality can't be summated in one system, at least not in this case. I think it's better to have your own gestalt "system" which you incorporate various, cross-referenced facets of multiple systems and ideas into. All that matters is what corresponds with reality/experience; there is no point in simply using a system because it is a system.

Now, I disagree, because I'm the kind of guy who will either completely accept a system or completely reject it. There is no middle ground. If I like a theory, I will find reasons to explain everything. If I don't, I will shun it in every way I possibly can; I'll find reasons to annihilate it bit by bit.

Well, this seems limiting in the long run. I wouldn't want to confine myself to one system when multiple systems/aspects could explain the phenomena more thoroughly and concisely. I think you're being insular.

Some would say my way was foolish; yours, wise. Others vice versa. I'm more inclined towards the explanation that you and I think "differently". I don't think you're wrong as such, but the way you approach socionics is basically incompatible with the way in which I do.

Fair enough, but all I'm promoting is experiential verification and assessment based off of first-hand understanding, rather than working in some top-down approach which ultimately limits your understanding.

[Jarno]

Fair enough, but all I'm promoting is experiential verification and assessment based off of first-hand understanding, rather than working in some top-down approach which ultimately limits your understanding.

That is ofcourse the best way to go.

Except my experience has taught me that the socionics system is right. At least perfect enough that it's impossible to make significant improvements.

[Slacker]

Here's the issue. This is a Socionics forum. In order to have any meaningful discussion on Socionics, we have to agree on some definitions. If you come up with some other theroy that explains things better, then I'd be very happy to hear about it, but all I hear is you tearing down the definitions we have available.

It's like discussing art but having different names for the colors and shapes. "That is a blue triangle." "No it isn't. It's obviously a green square! Would you stop with these stupid rules about what "blue" and "triangle" mean!

[Ezra]

Well.. After reading a little more, I have come to the conclusion that 9w1 is more probable than 1w9. But 4w3 isn't all that off neither. So I'm not sure yet...

(And I DO like Se!!! So, there. :wink

Nine I can roll with for now, but do have a look into Four. I wouldn't be surprised if you turned out to be a Four.

But that's the whole point: reality can't be summated in one system, at least not in this case.

Reality isn't being "summated" (did you mean summarised?) in one system; only an aspect of it is, which is fine. People do this all the time. What do you think law is?

[Ezra]

I have read like 10 different descriptions, and I can't decide. I think I have too many inner conflicts to identify only one type... Can I be all types?

I think 4 and 9 describe me the best.
If I'm a 9 I have a strong 1-wing making me more assertive than a typical 9. I identify with both the 9 and the 1 fixations....
However, I identify with the 4 behavioral descriptions almost more than the 9 descriptions, and that confuses me. I don't relate AS strongly with the fixations, but I might be in denial. Does anyone know how to proceed?

Read this; it may help to clear up a few issues. This description was practically written for people like you.

Misidentifying Fours and Nines

Some average Nines think that they are Fours because they have artistic talents and creative inclinations of one kind or another. As in the case of love not being the sole domain of Twos, artistic capacity is not the sole province of Fours. Other types can be, and often are, artists.

Even so, the artistry of Fours is much more personal and self-revealing than that of Nines. The art of Nines often expresses idealized, mythological, and archetypal worlds–usually the real world glossed into something fantastic and wondrous. Nines are often gifted storytellers in which "...and they all lived happily ever after" is assured. (There are no unhappy endings in the Nine's world of make-believe.) By contrast, the art of Fours is generally more personal and realistic, the expression of the Four's (and of everyone's) deep longing for love, wholeness, and meaning. Fours often deal in the tragic, finding redemption in self-transcendence; Nines deal in the commonplace, finding comfort in ordinary lives and simple situations.

The principal reason these types may be confused is that they are both withdrawn types. (PT, 433-36). Fours withdraw from others so that they can protect themselves and give themselves time to deal with their emotions. Nines, on the other hand, are withdrawn in the sense that they remove their attention from people or situations that threaten them, disengaging themselves emotionally so that they will not be anxious or upset. They cut off their identification with others (or never identify with them in the first place), identifying instead with a private idealized version of reality. Average to unhealthy Nines tune out any unpleasantness by dissociating from whatever upsets them, whereas Fours do just the opposite, brooding over their anxieties in an attempt to come to terms with them. Fours are certainly not detached from their emotions–just the reverse, they are keenly aware of them, perhaps too much so.

Both types can therefore be shy, absent-minded, confused, and detached from the real world. The difference is that Nines are detached both from the external world and from their emotions, whereas Fours withdraw from whatever has caused them pain. (In the end, that may add up to quite a lot.) Nines see the world through rose-colored glasses, and their view of it is comforting, whereas Fours see the world from a garret window as outsiders and are not comforted: everyone else seems to be living a happier, more normal life. Contrast the personalities of Mahler (a Four) and Aaron Copland (a Nine), Saul Steinberg (a Four) and Norman Rockwell (a Nine).

And btw... how come you are still my superego?

I'm not, I'm your dual.



Oh, that... I'll change it.