Redbaron, you just described a Normalizing EII I know well!
Redbaron, you just described a Normalizing EII I know well!
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant --> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
What Krig described is in fact a very good E1 analysis in general, even with type tags removed. Especially interesting since it interweaves the system with socionics in a sensible way, as opposed to dumb correlations made from time to time. Since redbaron agrees with socionics types in it I think this lead is worth following.
Forgive me for stating the obvious but Krig, you are awesome and we love you.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Quaero Veritas.
I was reading Krig's description and thinking this too, that it makes for a good description of e1 at unhealthy levels, probably around 3-4. However, I'm a bit weary of using socionics to explain construction of enneagram types just because there are so many other explanations for their development. For type 1 for example the theories range from being born 1st child in family on whom all responsibility is placed, to having to live in a very chaotic environment, to having overly-critical parents, to being subjected to rigid hierarchical schooling environment, to simply having propensity for OCD. Unless there are controls for all these other possible factors I'm not sure a meaningful correlation can be made (in case of this woman she could have possibly received Se-PoLR hits from her parents or it could have been any one or a combination of the above).
The existence of worthless theories explaining something doesn't imply every other theory attempting the same will be worthless. The essence of enneagram is deep-rooted motivations, not what circumstances inspire those - they are not only infinitely variable, but can affect different children in different ways. There isn't necessarily going to be a strong correlation with oldest child being a particular type even if it does have an effect, because its influence can be different from case to case. From this point of view, enneagram is absolutely useless and untestable as a scientific theory. On the other hand, so is socionics, and socionics type isn't a factor that can be controlled at all. Therefore any speculation in this area is going to be purely intuitive, not provable. I wish you luck however if you're going to go for scientific approach to this, creating a reliable type indicator and all.
From what I've seen, personas or "masks" develop during childhood as a response to exactly the sorts of factors you describe (birth order, environment, parents, etc.). This is why I can't help but intuitively feel that there is some connection between socionic masks and enneagram types, although I have not yet been able to figure out exactly what that connection is. It's possible my intuitive feeling is wrong, of course, but I think it's a worthwhile avenue of investigation.
Quaero Veritas.
I haven't claimed it is worthless. The polls on types and enneagram, however, show that the correlation between the two is rather marginal.
Possibly, and it all sounds very similar to "life positions" from Transactional Analysis as well, but there are just so many factors that cannot be controlled that it would be very difficult to pin down what exactly this relationship between the two is.
“controlling. fearful. worried about the future and HATES changes. (maybe not type related) Very slow to get used to new things. Not very adventurous when it comes to anything. Plays it safe.” This sounds more ESI, reminds me of my ESI friend. EIIs may be anxious about things, but we are not afraid of new things, thus we love change. Since ne is always feeling that what we have in the moment is lacking, it's hard to feel content. My ESI friend is the opposite in this way, she always tells me how she is afraid to move somewhere new, and prefers to do what she already knows is comfortable to her. One of the most obvious differences of ne creative and se creative..It's also confusing though because in some way se creativeis better at dealing with change, and adapting to it. It's just they have this uncertainty about doing it or starting it (ne polr), and I wish they wouldn't put themselves down in this way.
Last edited by youfloweryourfeast; 12-12-2022 at 03:59 PM.
EIIs in general look always calm. They are like tibetan monks (Yeah, I'm exaggerating it a little).
Btw ESIs have creative Se and they are a lot more rebel/imposing.
EIIs prefer a passive approach to everything. Instead of discussing things he prefer to just go away from your negative energies