Comments about making Enneagram-Socionics type correlations

[Robot]

Because there are so few things that are clear cut in the enneagram, it's not safe to say "X sociotype cannot be X enneagram type". "Never" or "always" or "will" or "will not" does not really exist in the enneagram; "mostly" and "probably" do though. With a system like that in which most things are not clear cut I find it better to not make cross-system conclusions on what makes sense theoretically (because the theory is not clear cut enough to do that) but on the subject of the theory! The people! There are a lot of things that make sense theoretically but in the real world they don't necessarily ring true. The only way to ever know with absolute certainty that whatever sociotype could absolutely not be whatever enneagram type would be to study every person on the planet.

Also with the things that ARE clear cut...well lets take the assumption that an INFj cannot be an enneagram 4...the things that are clear cut when it comes to what it is to be a 4 are as follows:

An enneagram 4 must:
*Want/need/seek to discover or make an identity for his or her self

Actually I can't think of anything else that is an absolute must to be an enneagram four. (If there is feel free to correct me.) All the other 4 information seemed to fall under the category of "If most of this is true for you then you are probably a four." Which of course means that each bit of information is not a requirement in itself to be a four but only one point in the direction of being a 4 IF most of those bits are true. So the only ways in which an INFj could not ever possibly be a 4 would be if:

*Part of what is is to be an INFj is to NOT want, need, or seek to discover or make an indentity for oneself. (To my current knowledge the aforementioned statement is not in any INFj descriptions.)

*The clear cut requirements plus any combination of most of the things that are often true for enneagram 4s are in opposition of what it is to be an INFj. (I haven't found this to be the case.)

Because what is required for it to be impossible for an INFj to be a four does not seem to be in existence the only option for proving that would be, as I mentioned before, to research every INFj on the planet.

All of what I just said could also be applied to 4s and ISFps. In which I feel I have a much stronger case because I know of an ISFp that is an enneagram 4!! I talked to her and she said that she has been interested in the enneagram for about a year now and has read everything about it that she can get her hands on and strongly identifies with the enneagram 4. She said that learning about enneagram 4s was an eye opening experience for her because she had been under a few delusions that fours often find themselves under and that she applied some of the advice on enneagram self-help sites and it has been helping her. In terms of percentages, she said that with all the descriptions she's read when it comes to things true for her, the enneagram four description always had the highest percentage of things that are true for her in comparison to the other enneagram descriptions.

And actually I shouldn't have had to say most of the things in that paragraph because figuring out your E type is not rocket science!! It's usually not that hard!! If someone says they’ve done a lot of research and identify with a certain type then that alone is enough!

I'd also like to add that although most of you seem to prefer socionics over the MBTT system, the MBTT does stand on it's own. As a whole it functions and is valid. And in this system with 16 distinct different personalities there is a great deal of variation when it comes to what MBTT type can be what enneagram type. ( Click here to see: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...14&postcount=4 ) If that same variation were in socionics I wouldn't be surprised at all. I haven't read any in depth arguments about why SEI is incompatible with E4 but I imagine that the degree in which an ISFp seems like it would not be able to be an enneagram four, an (MBTT) INTJ would seem even less likely to be able to be a four but an INTJ can be a 4 because I've spoken with one and because of evidence here: http://www.geocities.com/lifexplore/typecorr.htm

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Well, the more i've learned about the types, the more I can see how certain psychological types can't be certain enneagram types and vica versa.

At present this subject no doubt come with some controversy though. So many variables to take into account, such as peoples understanding of themselves, the typologies, wither they are typed correctly on the systems etc. It probably won't be resolved to a mutual consensus anytime soon.

[Robot]

Well, the more i've learned about the types, the more I can see how certain psychological types can't be certain enneagram types and vica versa.

At present this subject no doubt come with some controversy though. So many variables to take into account, such as peoples understanding of themselves, the typologies, wither they are typed correctly on the systems etc. It probably won't be resolved to a mutual consensus anytime soon.

HAHA! Do you know how frustrating it is to read you type that without fleshing out WHY you believe so?

Do you think an INFj and an ISFp could be an enneagram 4? To be completely honest I actualy don't care about the rest. I just have a hunch about INFjs and and I know an ISFp 4 so it's incredibly annoying to hear people constantly proclaiming that an ISFp can't be a 4.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

HAHA! Do you know how frustrating it is to read you type that without fleshing out WHY you believe so?

Yes, to a point

Do you think an INFj and an ISFp could be an enneagram 4?

The thread is young, is the game afoot? Maybe later hehe

[Robot]

Because socionics sites don't explicitly say "INFjs and ISFps are not concerned with their identities" or "INFjs and ISFps cannot be enneagram 4s" the only way you can convince me that an INFj or an ISFp can't be a four is if the bare minimum requirement to be a four is in opposition to those two types.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Because socionics sites don't explicitly say "INFjs and ISFps are not concerned with their identities" or "INFjs and ISFps cannot be enneagram 4s" the only way you can convince me that an INFj or an ISFp can't be a four is if the bare minimum requirement to be a four is in opposition to those two types.

For me, I can possibly see an ISFp being a 4 if they have a strong Fe type. So if your friend is an ISFp, it's likely they are strong Fe type. You could check this out yourself by reading Filatova's sub type descriptions and seeing which one matches up.

I think that if one reads the 4 description, what we're really reading is almost like an INFp description..ie socionic blocked with And also that we are reading someone who is an IP with creative

You've put forward a good argument in general, and i've said something similar myself, I think I said previously that taking parts from an enneagram description is something like taking someones quote out of context and putting it in a newspaper or magazine.

The links are interesting, however I think that these correlations come from celebrity typings, which are harder to be sure of accuracy even than individual typings over the internet. So I think the best thing is to rely on reading both typologies and seeing yourself how it applies IRL with peoples types you can be more sure of.

Although I will say that i've focused more on some other correlations than a 4 and an ISFp/INFp, I think what i've said still makes sense. Perhaps it doesn't

[aestrivex]

*The clear cut requirements plus any combination of most of the things that are often true for enneagram 4s are in opposition of what it is to be an INFj. (I haven't found this to be the case.)

Because what is required for it to be impossible for an INFj to be a four does not seem to be in existence the only option for proving that would be, as I mentioned before, to research every INFj on the planet.

All of what I just said could also be applied to 4s and ISFps. In which I feel I have a much stronger case because I know of an ISFp that is an enneagram 4!! I talked to her and she said that she has been interested in the enneagram for about a year now and has read everything about it that she can get her hands on and strongly identifies with the enneagram 4. She said that learning about enneagram 4s was an eye opening experience for her because she had been under a few delusions that fours often find themselves under and that she applied some of the advice on enneagram self-help sites and it has been helping her. In terms of percentages, she said that with all the descriptions she's read when it comes to things true for her, the enneagram four description always had the highest percentage of things that are true for her in comparison to the other enneagram descriptions.

sure. first of all, i will not comment on your alleged SEI 4 since i don't know the person and have no reason to take your word on either her representations of the SEI type or of 4.


however, obviously no enneagram correlations like that would be purely impossible. merely, however, that EIIs and SEIs are both generally fairly poor fits with 4.

dealing with even more dubious and seemingly antithetical correlations, such as ESE 5, SLI 3, EII 8, etc. might be a more confusing and "absolutely not" themed discussion.

[Robot]

sure. first of all, i will not comment on your alleged SEI 4 since i don't know the person and have no reason to take your word on either her representations of the SEI type or of 4.

K. Fair enough.

however, obviously no enneagram correlations like that would be purely impossible. merely, however, that EIIs and SEIs are both generally fairly poor fits with 4.

dealing with even more dubious and seemingly antithetical correlations, such as ESE 5, SLI 3, EII 8, etc. might be a more confusing and "absolutely not" themed discussion.

Okay. That works for me.

[Robot]

@ Jem and Cyclops: Sorry. I dunno what came over me. I should have spoken with more respect and politness. Please forgive me.

[Rubicon]

@ Jem and Cyclops: Sorry. I dunno what came over me. I should have spoken with more respect and politness. Please forgive me.

Dunno, Robot. I'll think about it.

[Robot]

Dunno, Robot. I'll think about it.

I really am sorry.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@ Jem and Cyclops: Sorry. I dunno what came over me. I should have spoken with more respect and politness. Please forgive me.

Oh I just noticed this.. You're posting way too fast just now for me to keep up while I am involved in other things. It's fine..just follow one line of thought for now.. Posting on threads is tricky when there are multiple posts from same person!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Still, following expectations and a perfectionistic voice has it's upsides : I have had a lot of external success, people are pleased with me, and I feel very proud of my achievements. BUT : unfortunately I feel that I never did it "my way", and my real dreams were abandoned for a life others wanted. Not my own. That's really painful to admit.

I have the opposite problem. I have like, so little external success, but I follow my own way completely.

Maybe we could help each other. But I wouldn't count on it, it seems like I don't know. The more people try to help the worse it gets. In the end we all are who we are. Victim of circumstance. It's hard to overcome those innate weaknesses. But we still need others for support to know that we're not alone in dealing with our weird complexes.

Souls are fickle things.

[strrrng]

And actually I shouldn't have had to say most of the things in that paragraph because figuring out your E type is not rocket science!! It's usually not that hard!! If someone says they’ve done a lot of research and identify with a certain type then that alone is enough!

Bullshit. If you don't understand the system correctly, you will mistype yourself, no matter how well you understand yourself.

I personally don't think SEIs can be 4s (this is just my feeling - no evidence to back it up whatsoever w00t)... because I think an SEI's Si makes them too grounded in the here and now, in physical reality to be able to successfully go about recreating themselves identity-wise. I can see recreating their external image, behaviour etc ... but I can't even conceive of how you would go about recreating your identity as an Si-dominant type. An SEI's identity is tied up with how they relate to the world around them in a sensory way .... so in order to recreate their identity, it'd have to be a very conscious act involving deliberately ignoring their physical instincts or something - it would be more like simply acting. Which I've done in the past, but could never sustain as it tires me out exceedingly. The idea of recreating my identity certainly fascinates me, but I could never seriously entertain the idea because ... Idk - I am who I am who I am. I think that's related to my Si base. lol Reliance on my inate instincts. I don't think it's enough to say I strongly identify with the following - "Want/need/seek to discover or make an identity for his or her self" - therefore I must be a 4. I think nearly every person could relate to that to some degree at some point in their life. I mean I "want/need/seek to ...." but I've realised it's impossible for me to do. w00t I may be going out on a limb here, but I think all SEIs would come to that conclusion if they really know themselves - no matter how much they relate to that statement. I think it comes down to whether or not that motivation pretty much sums your motivations up as a person or not - and I think it can be pretty hard to separate your core motivation (if such a thing exists) from your needs/desires that have arisen from experiences in your life. So I don't think it's as easy as "read them all ... and whichever one you relate to most must be you".

This is incorrect and a horrible justification for an already baseless claim. You don't even understand the 4 motivation, as you literalize it into simply searching for identity, without understanding the underlying motivations for such a behavior. And the argument of being too physically grounded to find one's identity is just wrong. The bolded parts are the most egregious and/or annoying errors.

As Robots ISFp friend doesn't relate to all the mystic mumbo jumbo-as she puts it, she can't be a 4.

Yeah, cause all 4's are D3Lu5i0nAl mystics. You don't understand the 4 at all.

I think you should first know your fixation to find your enneatype. It's not possible to read by the descriptions really, as it's hard to know how we act outwardly. You have to UNDERSTAND what your fixation drives you to do every day. That gives you your enneatype. I guess that's more or less what you wrote?

Yes, agreed.

You don't need to recreate yourself to be a four. The main drive is to FIND YOUR IDENTITY.

Simplification. Who doesn't want to find their identity? Maybe a few people, but it's too simple a characteristic to make it the hallmark of 4's. The reason 4's want to find their identity is because they feel as though a part of themselves was lost/taken in childhood - their pure self - and that something is wrong with them, so they attempt to compensate by cultivating an ideal self, based mainly on stories (some true, some false) from the past and dwelling on specific feelings that cultivate this. Don't you see how much more complex it is than some one-sentence summary?

[Robot]

Simplification. Who doesn't want to find their identity? Maybe a few people, but it's too simple a characteristic to make it the hallmark of 4's. The reason 4's want to find their identity is because they feel as though a part of themselves was lost/taken in childhood - their pure self - and that something is wrong with them, so they attempt to compensate by cultivating an ideal self, based mainly on stories (some true, some false) from the past and dwelling on specific feelings that cultivate this. Don't you see how much more complex it is than some one-sentence summary?

Yes, it is most certainly more complex than that one sentence. I didn't mean to make it seem like that was all there was to it. Apparently I made it seem like that though. Thanks for responding, that paragraph is very useful and IMO right on the money.

You seem to know the enneagram in depth.

Do you agree with me that an INFj and an ISFp could be a 4? Wait did you already say you did?...*re-reads post*

Bullshit.

Well you know her. You tell me if her understanding is way off or not.

[strrrng]

Yes, it is most certainly more complex than that one sentence. I didn't mean to make it seem like that was all there was to it. Apparently I made it seem like that though. Thanks for responding, that paragraph is very useful and IMO right on the money.

You seem to know the enneagram in depth.

Do you agree with me that an INFj and an ISFp could be a 4? Wait did you already say you did?...*re-reads post*

Thanks, I have studied it a good amount, and continue to do so, to make sure I don't misinterpret certain facets. And yes, there is no reason why an ISFp or INFj couldn't be a 4. The majority of ISFPs are, some are 9's, 3's and 6's. Most INFj's tend to be 1's or 9's, but some Ne subs are 4's (eunice, christy). Of course, people here will tell you that any INFj 4 is really INFp.

Well you know her. You tell me if her understanding is way off or not.

What?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Thanks, I have studied it a good amount, and continue to do so, to make sure I don't misinterpret certain facets. And yes, there is no reason why an ISFp or INFj couldn't be a 4. The majority of ISFPs are, some are 9's, 3's and 6's. Most INFj's tend to be 1's or 9's, but some Ne subs are 4's (eunice, christy). Of course, people here will tell you that any INFj 4 is really INFp.



What?

No.

[Robot]

No.

Strrng's paragraph on four motivations captured the complexity of it and was right on the money. I seriously doubt that you can find anything in the enneagram realm that says other wise.

[Robot]

Thanks, I have studied it a good amount, and continue to do so, to make sure I don't misinterpret certain facets. And yes, there is no reason why an ISFp or INFj couldn't be a 4. The majority of ISFPs are, some are 9's, 3's and 6's. Most INFj's tend to be 1's or 9's, but some Ne subs are 4's (eunice, christy). Of course, people here will tell you that any INFj 4 is really INFp.



What?

Mime girl on youtube.

[strrrng]

Mime girl on youtube.

Oh, what about her? We're friends and I think she's a 4w5 sx/so Si-ISFp. I saw some video she made about myers briggs, but what are you asking?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Bullshit. If you don't understand the system correctly, you will mistype yourself, no matter how well you understand yourself.



This is incorrect and a horrible justification for an already baseless claim. You don't even understand the 4 motivation, as you literalize it into simply searching for identity, without understanding the underlying motivations for such a behavior. And the argument of being too physically grounded to find one's identity is just wrong. The bolded parts are the most egregious and/or annoying errors.



Yeah, cause all 4's are D3Lu5i0nAl mystics. You don't understand the 4 at all.



Yes, agreed.



Simplification. Who doesn't want to find their identity? Maybe a few people, but it's too simple a characteristic to make it the hallmark of 4's. The reason 4's want to find their identity is because they feel as though a part of themselves was lost/taken in childhood - their pure self - and that something is wrong with them, so they attempt to compensate by cultivating an ideal self, based mainly on stories (some true, some false) from the past and dwelling on specific feelings that cultivate this. Don't you see how much more complex it is than some one-sentence summary?

No.

[strrrng]

No.

how cute lol

[Rubicon]

Simplification. Who doesn't want to find their identity? Maybe a few people, but it's too simple a characteristic to make it the hallmark of 4's. The reason 4's want to find their identity is because they feel as though a part of themselves was lost/taken in childhood - their pure self - and that something is wrong with them, so they attempt to compensate by cultivating an ideal self, based mainly on stories (some true, some false) from the past and dwelling on specific feelings that cultivate this. Don't you see how much more complex it is than some one-sentence summary?

So you're saying that 4s have to have had a screwed-up childhood that they can't come to terms with? That's ridiculous.

[strrrng]

So you're saying that 4s have to have had a screwed-up childhood that they can't come to terms with? That's ridiculous.

Wow, you're dumb. I wasn't promoting any stupid freudian shit. 4's don't have to have endured abuse to have the fixation. It's MENTAL. All I said was that they FEEL - meaning a belief - as though a part of them (internally) was lost in childhood. I didn't say it was for a specific reason.

[Rubicon]

Wow, you're dumb. I wasn't promoting any stupid freudian shit. 4's don't have to have endured abuse to have the fixation. It's MENTAL. All I said was that they FEEL - meaning a belief - as though a part of them (internally) was lost in childhood. I didn't say it was for a specific reason.

And they're searching for this part that's missing so they can piece together their identity? So their ultimate goal is to present their truly authentic self ... so the trying on identities thing is an unhealthy 4's behaviour?

[strrrng]

And they're searching for this part that's missing so they can piece together their identity? So their ultimate goal is to present their truly authentic self ... so the trying on identities thing is an unhealthy 4's behaviour?

Trying to reconnect with their "true" self, yes - the self that was lost/tainted. So they cultivate an ideal self, which does encompass trying on different identities. It also is about taking traits and internalizing them, adding them to the conglomeration, comparing one's self to others, noticing what they have that we don't. It sucks lol. And yeah, the more focused on "specialness" a 4 gets, and the less they think they are being recognized/appreciated, the more unhealthy they are. Overcoming the idea that something is wrong with them is the goal. I haven't overcome this in the least bit. I'm probably in the average levels of health (second tier, there are three). whatever. I tend to just constantly look inward and try to find the traits that are stable and which I truly like, notice which parts of my ideals actually correspond to reality, have withdrawn tendencies (not letting the world detract from the ideals), etc.

[aka-kitsune]

And they're searching for this part that's missing so they can piece together their identity? So their ultimate goal is to present their truly authentic self ... so the trying on identities thing is an unhealthy 4's behaviour?

"Trying on identities" is likely more associated with E4w3 and so-variant dominance. Many 4s are more eclectic and are constantly sifting through influences and adding to their repertoire. It's a cultivation thing.

[crazedrat]

the enneagram is worthless, and you are wasting your time.

[Robot]

You said this today:
Then five hours later you said this:
Until you sort yourself out, you deserve no respect.

You misunderstand me. I didn't mean it in a type sense! I meant that when I type E-N-F-LITTLE P that I'm refferrring to socionics ENFp and when I type E-N-F-BIG P that I'm referrring to MYERS BRIGGS ENFP.

That's all I meant by that!!

Which system I was referrring to.

ENFp doesn't = ENFP because when I type ENFp I'm referreing to a socionics ENFp not a myers briggs ENFP. I didn't mean you won't have any MBTT ENFPS that are socionics ENFps. I was using the "p" to distinguish which system I was referring to.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

You misunderstand me. I didn't mean it in a type sense! I meant that when I type E-N-F-LITTLE P that I'm refferrring to socionics ENFp and when I type E-N-F-BIG P that I'm referrring to MYERS BRIGGS ENFP.

That's all I meant by that!!

Which system I was referrring to.

ENFp doesn't = ENFP because when I type ENFp I'm referreing to a socionics ENFp not a myers briggs ENFP. I didn't mean you won't have any MBTT ENFPS that are socionics ENFps. I was using the "p" to distinguish which system I was referring to.

Yes, I realised this after I posted and deleted the post. Still, do you think that ENFP type descriptions are basically talking about the same thing as the ENFp descriptions?

[Robot]

Yes, I realised this after I posted and deleted the post. Still, do you think that ENFP type descriptions are basically talking about the same thing as the ENFp descriptions?

Oh okay. So you do get what I was saying. Heh I really should word things much more carefully. Hahaha.

Uhmm. Wait does that matter? Like if I were to say "No they're not basically talking about the same thing." Or "Yes they are"...what are you thinking that that would mean?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Uhmm. Wait does that matter? Like if I were to say "No they're not basically talking about the same thing." Or "Yes they are"...what are you thinking that that would mean?

If you think the ENFP type descriptions are basically the same as ENFp descriptions then it means ENFP = ENFp.

[Robot]

If you think the ENFP type descriptions are basically the same as ENFp descriptions then it means ENFP = ENFp.

Oh well again when I typed that I didn't actually mean it in that sense. I simply meant that I was using the "P" which is either a lower case "p" or an upper case "P" to distinguish that I was either talking about socionics or Myers Briggs.

In the sense of what MBTT type can be what sociotype which is I think what you're talking about right here, right? When you say ENFp = ENFP you're saying that across systems that type remains the same, correct? I wasn't saying that. I was saying that because there was a capitol P I was talking about the MBTT ENFP. I don't know that ENFP descriptions are the most similar to ENFp descriptions. I know that it's very possible for socionic ENFps to be something other than MBTT ENFPs. K?