Yes, to a pointOriginally Posted by Robot
The thread is young, is the game afoot? Maybe later heheDo you think an INFj and an ISFp could be an enneagram 4?
Yes, to a point
The thread is young, is the game afoot? Maybe later heheDo you think an INFj and an ISFp could be an enneagram 4?
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 socionicblocked 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
You are an idiot, Robot. You don't understand the Enneagram, so get rid of your false opinions about it. There are no ISFp 4s. Delusions, delusion, delusions ...
You're the idiot until you can prove with logic that I'm the idiot. Name-calling takes work, Phaedrus.
You know, my next step is going to be defining what exactly the bare minimum is in clear concise terms.
(And scrounging around in the fridge for some waffles.)
Waffles!
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".
You refuse to learn, therefore you deserve no respect.
Jem makes some good points here.
As Robots ISFp friend doesn't relate to all the mystic mumbo jumbo-as she puts it, she can't be a 4.
I don't have time to pull out quotes at the moment, but I might have some time later.
Well, re above, I don't have time at present, but I think you can verify this yourself, by reading the descriptions. End of day it's up to you to agree. I probably could convince you, but that would take time on my part to what real end?Okay you found some Ni. Point it out and how much of it is there? She doesn't relate to all the mystical mumbo jumbo. She relates to everything else though which evidently is still most of the description.
But what is interesting is you are saying she doesn't relate to the 'mystic mumbo jumbo.' I was under the impression that she related to all the 4 description. Perhaps this mystic mumbo jumbo she refers to is her way of describing the Ni part of it, how she views Ni from her own S dominant stand point.
They have it as stronger unconcious function. But it's somewhat of a myth to say strong 1st and 2nd function leads to equally strong 7th and 8th function. I know some people who have definite dominant Ti but poor Te. Some types might also have the capacity to draw on these unconcious functions, but rarely if ever do.Also, I don't buy that stuff about Fe. Fi types are strong in Fe too!
Reply With Quote
