As for your list, Joy:
ILE; 1, 2, 4, 8, 9
SEI; 1, 3, 6, 8
ESE; 4, 5, 9
LII; 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9
SLE; 1, 2, 4, 5, 9
IEI; 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8
EIE; 5, 6, 7, 8
LSI; 2, 4, 7, 9
LIE; 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9
ESI; 4, 5, 7, 8, 9
SEE; 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9
ILI; 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9
LSE; 2, 4, 5, 7, 9
EII; 3, 5, 7, 8
IEE; 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9
SLI; 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9
I may have left some out, or put some in which contradict my other thread in this sub forum. Tell me if I do, and I'll correct it.
to say that ANYBODY of any socionics/ennagram type cannot be some particular type in the other system is inherently flawed.
the best you can do is say things like "its extremely improbable that an LSI would be a 7w6. one would normally expect an LSI to identify more with one of 1/5/6/8/whatever"
Originally Posted by Joy
I disagree. I think you can make direct correlations and be certain of them.
Certain Enneagram types cannot possibly have a certain PoLR e.g. an 8 cannot have Se PoLR. It's like saying that it is possible for someone to be alive when their head has been blown clean off by a Magnum.
then you're wrong.I disagree. I think you can make direct correlations and be certain of them.
There are always going to be exceptions.
Proove it.then you're wrong.I disagree. I think you can make direct correlations and be certain of them.
It may be unlikely that a person of socionics type X is Ennegram type Y, but i would say that since the basis of each theory is different (approaching personality type theory through disparate lenses), it would be unwise to assert that there is such clear-cut correspondence. one reason for this discrepancy is that there are "unhealthy" types left and right, often not realizing they are unhealthy. not considering this is like saying "a rotten tomato can still be used as an ingredient in good spaghetti."
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
Let a,b,c be the sides of a triangle, and let A be the area of theProove it.then you're wrong.I disagree. I think you can make direct correlations and be certain of them.
triangle. Heron's formula states that A^2 = s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c),
where s = (a+b+c)/2. The actual origin of this formula is somewhat
obscure historically, and it may well have been known for centuries
prior to Heron. For example, some people think it was known to
Archimedes. However, the first definite reference we have to this
formula is Heron's. His proof of this result is extremely circuitious,
and it seems clear that it must have been found by an entirely different
thought process, and then "dressed up" in the usual synthetic form
that the classical Greeks preferred for their presentations.
Here's a much more straightforward derivation. Consider the general
triangle with edge lengths a,b,c shown below
(omitted for clarity. the resulting image was pretty terrible.)
We have a = u+v, b^2 = h^2+u^2, c^2 = h^2+v^2. Subtracting the
second from the third gives u^2-v^2 = b^2-c^2. Dividing both sides
by a = u+v, we have u-v = (b^2-c^2)/a. Adding u+v = a to both
sides and solving for u gives
a^2 + b^2 - c^2
u = -----------------
2a
Taking h = sqrt(b^2-u^2) we have
__________________________________
1 | / \ 2 / a^2 + b^2 - c^2 \ 2
A = ah/2 = --- | ( ab ) - ( ----------------- ) (1)
2 \| \ / \ 2 /
which is equivalent to Heron's formula. Factoring out 1/4, this gives
three different ways of expressing (2ab)^2 - (a^2+b^2-c^2)^2 as a
difference of two squares. Equivalently, it gives three different
factorizations of 16A^2, each of the form
16A^2 = [(a+b)^2 - c^2] [c^2 - (a-b)^2] (2)
Factoring each of these terms gives the explicitly symmetrical form
16A^2 = (a+b+c)(a+b-c)(c-a+b)(c+a-b) (3)
so if we define s=(a+b+c)/2 we can write equation (1) as
________________
A = /s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c) (4)
which is the area formula as given by Heron.
For an alternative derivation see Heron's Formula For Tetrahedrons.
Incidentally, if we factor ab out of the radical in equation (1) we
get
____________________________
ab | / a^2 + b^2 - c^2 \ 2
A = ah/2 = --- | 1 - ( ----------------- ) (5)
2 \| \ 2ab /
Notice that if we take either the edge "a" or "b" as the base of the
triangle, then the height is sin(q) where q is the angle between "a"
and "b", and of course the area of half the altitude times the base
(which is easily seen by considering the parallelogram), so we have
A = (ab/2) sin(q), which implies that the radical in (5) equals the
sine of the angle between "a" and "b". Furthermore, it implies that
the cosine is given by the well-known formula
/ a^2 + b^2 - c^2 \
cos(q) = ( ----------------- )
\ 2ab /
[By the way, permutations of {a,b,c} = {3,5,7} in equation (2) give
the three factorizations 675 = (15)(45) = (9)(75) = (5)(135), which
leaves out (1)(675), (3)(225), and (25)(27). Is there an expression
in a,b,c that gives these three factorizations under permutation?]
One of the most beautiful things about Heron's formula is the
generalization discovered by the Hindu mathematician Brahmagupta
around 620 AD. He noted that we have a symmetrical product of four
factors inside the square root of equation (4), consisting of twice
the quantities
a+b+c a+b-c a-b+c -a+b+c
In a sense we can "full out" the symmetry, making each of the four
factors symmetrical with the others, by imagining a fourth "side"
of length d=0 being subtracted from the first factor and added to
the remaining three, so we have
a+b+c-d a+b-c+d a-b+c+d -a+b+c+d
Obviously with d=0 this is identical to the previous set of factors,
but it has greater formal symmetry, so it seems as if the quantity
1 _____________________________________
--- /(a+b+c-d)(a+b-c+d)(a-b+c+d)(-a+b+c+d)
4
MUST represent... something meaningful. Indeed it does. This is the
area of a quadrilateral with sides a,b,c,d inscribed in a circle, i.e.,
a cyclic quadrilateral. Naturally every triangle is cyclic, meaning
that it can be inscribed in a circle, and a triangle can be regarded
as a quadrilateral with one of its four edge lengths set equal to zero.
Brahmagupta didn't actually give a formal proof of this result, and
in fact the surviving copies of his statement of this proposition
don't mention the fact that it applies only to cyclic quadrilaterals.
It's tempting to think that Brahmagupta might have just imagined the
equation based on its formal symmetry.
Incidentally, the formula for the area of an arbitrary quadrilateral
is
1 __________________________________________________ ______
--- /(a+b+c-d)(a+b-c+d)(a-b+c+d)(-a+b+c+d) - 16 abcd cos(q)^2
4
where q is half the sum of two opposite angles. For a cyclic
quadrilateral the each pair of opposite angles sums to pi, so it
reduces to Brahmagupta's formula, which proves the corresponding
Enneasocion theorem that there is no correlation between enneagram and socionics.
An ILE with OCD could identify most with 1, but that doesn't mean we should generally consider 1 a possible type for ILE's.
the key word being "generally"
That's my point.
It is not unlikely that there are no ILEs with OCD. It must be a very rare combination anyway. Those two conditions don't correlate well.
Being ILE is a condition?
Anyways, OCD is about seratonin and norepinephrine... not type. Some types are more likely than others to seem OCD when they're unbalanced, but true OCD can occur in an ILE just as easily as any other type.
(I know there are a lot of people who would disagree and say that brain disorders are type related... to them I say once again... Some types are more likely than others to seem OCD when they're unbalanced.)
Every neurological condition is type related, OCD included. That has been known since long before Socionics was invented. Jung was aware of it, and for example Ernst Kretschmer has written much about it. This is not something controversial. It is rather trivial, but it is very important not to think like Joy here.
when neither is an object or set of objects (neither is definable, clear in its attributes, consistent across the range of human experience, etc), we are stuck. inevitably falling prey to our perception. flying just below the bile in the clouds. this kind of thing makes me wanna throw in the proverbial towel.
whenever the dog and i see each other we both stop where we are. we regard each other with a mixture of sadness and suspicion and then we feign indifference.
Jerry, The Zoo Story by Edward Albee
Re: Possible Enneagram types for each Socionic type
I've talked about this with my friends too. I don't know how valid this will hold for all types but I'm confident for certain types that sub-type is the main reason one socionic type can differ on the enneagram. For example I'm absolutely positive of this for my own type.Congratulations. I had this figured months ago.
Allow me to change a few. Things have changed since I last tried one of these correlations. I've got a better understanding of the functions now. These are the E-types I think are only truly possible for each socionics type.
Is there any reason why you put it in code, machintruc?Code:ILE 6w5, 6w7, 7w6 ILI 5w4, 5w6, maybe 6w5 LIE 3w4, cp6w5, 7w6, 8w7, 8w9 LII 5w6, 6w5 SLE cp6w5, 7w8, 8w7 SLI 5w4, 5w6, maybe 9w8 LSE 1w9, maybe, 1w2, 3w2, 3w4, 6w5, maybe 8w9 LSI 1w9, maybe 1w2, maybe 3w4, 5w6 (with a strong link to 8), (cp)6w5, 8w9 IEE 2w3, 3w2, 7w6 IEI 4w3, 4w5, maybe 9w8 EIE maybe 1w2, 2w1, 2w3, 3w2, 3w4, 6w7 EII 1w2, 2w1, 2w3, 4w3, 4w5 SEE 6w7, 7w6, 7w8 SEI 5w4, 9w8, maybe 9w1 ESE 2w1, 2w3, 6w7 ESI 1w2, 2w1, 2w3, 6w7, 6w5
Ni-dominant***
INFp-Ni=4w5 vs. Fe= 4w3
INTp-Ni= 5w4 vs. Te=5w6 / 6w5.
----------------
Se-dominant***
ESTp-Se= 8w7 vs. Ti=7w8/8w9
ESFp-Se=8 vs. Fi=7/3
--------------
Si-dominant***
ISFp-Fe=4w3 vs. Si=9w1
ISTp-Si=9w8 vs. Te=5?
---------------
ENFp-Ne=6w5 vs. Fi=6w7
INTj-Ne=5w6 vs. Ti=6w5
INFj-Ne=4w5 vs. Fi=9w1 ?
ISFj-Se=1w2? vs. Fi=
ISTj-Se=1w9 vs. Ti=9w8-1
ENTp-Ne=8w7 vs. Ti=?
ENFp-Ne=6w5 vs. Fi=6w7
ENFj-Ni=9w1 vs. Fe=6w7?
ENTj-Ni=8w7? vs. Te =8w9
ESFj-Fe=2+3 vs. Si=2w1
ESTj-Te=7-8 vs. Si=3w2....
I'm not really sure of the others. but you might notice already there's some basic relations. INTp-INFp-Ni both share 4 and 5. ISFp-Fe is pushed closer towards INFp-Fe at 4w3, whereas ISFp-Si is more similar to ISTp-Si at E9. ISTp-Te is meanwhile moving towards an INTp-Te and E5/6. Ne INTjs + INFjs are also both drawn toward 5, INFj-Fi is closer to 9 and 1 along with the ISFj-Fi. Anyways these are just the ones that I'm relatively confident on. While correlations are never completely accurate neither is self-typing, so for example I think INFps that claim to be 9s have likely mistyped themselves in either system and are actually INFjs, ENFjs, or actually 4s.
INFp-Ni
huh, sounds pretty good. 'cept i have trouble seeing myself as an 8. more like a 7w6 (counterphobic).
i agree that infp's are 4's. clearly.
estp, entj definitely 8.
enfp can be 3.
intj usually 5.
esfp can be 7 or 3.
everything else seems good.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
No. It means that at least one of your premises is false, or that something else is wrong with your reasoning.
Another way of looking at it is by determining what functions each type can clearly not have as a leading function.
So for:
1 Ni, Ne
2 Te, Ti, Se
3 Ni
4 Te, Ti, Se, probably Si
5 Se, Fe, Fi
6 Compatible with every function I think
7 Probably Te, Ti
8 Fi, Si, Ni
9 Se, Te, Ti
Is out of the question.
That's easy enough to understand. Ne and Te as leading functions are perfectly compatible with the 5.
Re: Possible Enneagram types for each Socionic type
This is very interesting, and I like it a lot. But there are some adjustments I'd make.
SLE-Se is as likely 7w8 as 8w7. Ti dominant is unlikely to be 7w8, and is more likely to be 8 (either wing).
I have trouble seeing an SEI 4. I think most if not all SEIs are 9s and 9s alone.
I have trouble seeing a 6w5 as an IEE.
A ESI-Fi is a typical 6w5.
No way could an LSI be a 9. LSI-Se most likely 8w9 or 1w9. LSI-Ti most likely 1w9 or perhaps 6w5.
An ILE-Ti is most like a 6w5. ILE-Ne; probably a 7w6.
I'd say an EIE-Ni can be 3w4 or 4w3 and an EIE-Fe is most like a 3w4.
I think Te-dominant LIEs are more like 5w6s and 6w5s than 8w9s. Ni dominant I s'pose are like 8w9s. I don't think LIE is very compatible with 8w7 though.
ESEs are just as likely going to be 2w3s as 3w2s, regardless of subtype.
An LSE cannot - I repeat not - be a 7. Not even a 7w8. An LSE 8w7 is unlikely. The most likely type for an LSE is 1w9 or 3w2. Perhaps 8w9. I think LSE-Te is most likely a 1w9 (Richard Dawkins is an LSE-Te 1w9) or 5w6. LSE-Si would probably correspond most with 3w2 or 8w9, and maybe 5w6.
I think machintruc is relating Ne to the 8's strong sense of vision. I'm beginning to think that 8 is actually compatible with ILE.
7w6 is definitely as if not more compatible with ILE than 8.
Re: Possible Enneagram types for each Socionic type
thanks I agree with the adjustments! certain types I simply haven't had enough real life experience with to conclude anything. I noticed that in regards to the enneagram people have been being very 'PC' so to speak in relating it to socionics - cause of course they claim there's that slight probability that an individual won't correlate. I agree we should acknowledge this small probability but also move towards narrowing it down. Certain types though are definitely a lot harder to narrow down, LSEs are one of them, still working on that tooThis is very interesting, and I like it a lot. But there are some adjustments I'd make.
SLE-Se is as likely 7w8 as 8w7. Ti dominant is unlikely to be 7w8, and is more likely to be 8 (either wing).
I have trouble seeing an SEI 4. I think most if not all SEIs are 9s and 9s alone.
I have trouble seeing a 6w5 as an IEE.
A ESI-Fi is a typical 6w5.
No way could an LSI be a 9. LSI-Se most likely 8w9 or 1w9. LSI-Ti most likely 1w9 or perhaps 6w5.
An ILE-Ti is most like a 6w5. ILE-Ne; probably a 7w6.
I'd say an EIE-Ni can be 3w4 or 4w3 and an EIE-Fe is most like a 3w4.
I think Te-dominant LIEs are more like 5w6s and 6w5s than 8w9s. Ni dominant I s'pose are like 8w9s. I don't think LIE is very compatible with 8w7 though.
ESEs are just as likely going to be 2w3s as 3w2s, regardless of subtype.
An LSE cannot - I repeat not - be a 7. Not even a 7w8. An LSE 8w7 is unlikely. The most likely type for an LSE is 1w9 or 3w2. Perhaps 8w9. I think LSE-Te is most likely a 1w9 (Richard Dawkins is an LSE-Te 1w9) or 5w6. LSE-Si would probably correspond most with 3w2 or 8w9, and maybe 5w6.
I think machintruc is relating Ne to the 8's strong sense of vision. I'm beginning to think that 8 is actually compatible with ILE.
7w6 is definitely as if not more compatible with ILE than 8.
I wouldn't imagine that many ILEs are 8s, even fewer Ne subtype than Ti.
INTjs and INFjs will often leave things to the last minute, because they have strong Ni.Not quite: I leave stuff to the last minute, such as assignments, because I like the pressure :wink:.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
My dad is an SEI 4. Really and truly. The other SEI I know is definitely a 9 but my dad is a 4.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Most SEI are E4 or E9. Men are more toward E9, and women more toward E4.
CAUTION : When typing someone SEI-9 instead of SEI-4, he/she may actually be an IEI.
Maybe but these are both firm SEIs. My dad (Most SEI are E4 or E9. Men are more toward E9, and women more toward E4.
CAUTION : When typing someone SEI-9 instead of SEI-4, he/she may actually be an IEI.subtype) is a 9. Both male. Def. not IEI.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Why do you think he is a 4? Or rather what are you more certain of; his being a 4 or an SEI?
No, he isn't. It is totally impossible for a SEI to be a 4. Every 4, without exceptions, is an intuitive type.
What bullshit.Most SEI are E4 or E9. Men are more toward E9, and women more toward E4.
I think he's a 4 because besides having taken a couple of tests (yeah yeah, I know they can be wrong), I do think he has a major issue (and always has) with envy and wanting attention. He matches the ISFp description perfectly, in addition to the VI stuff which I am not always sold on. But in his case, it really matches. I'm not sure what I'm more certain of. Probably the ISFp.Why do you think he is a 4? Or rather what are you more certain of; his being a 4 or an SEI?
IEI-Fe 4w3
Well my dad likes to feel special so he'll be glad to know he's the only SEI 4 in the world!No, he isn't. It is totally impossible for a SEI to be a 4. Every 4, without exceptions, is an intuitive type.
IEI-Fe 4w3
I said that he can't be, and I told you the truth. So why do you keep insisting that he is an SEI and a 4? You don't seem to be 100 % certain of any of those two claims, so why do you even claim anything? You obviously don't know what you are talking about, you are only guessing. If your dad is a SEI he is a 9. If he is a 4 he is not a SEI.Well my dad likes to feel special so he'll be glad to know he's the only SEI 4 in the world!No, he isn't. It is totally impossible for a SEI to be a 4. Every 4, without exceptions, is an intuitive type.
Well I don't believe that. And I guess I know him better than you do.I said that he can't be, and I told you the truth. So why do you keep insisting that he is an SEI and a 4? You don't seem to be 100 % certain of any of those two claims, so why do you even claim anything? You obviously don't know what you are talking about, you are only guessing. If your dad is a SEI he is a 9. If he is a 4 he is not a SEI.Well my dad likes to feel special so he'll be glad to know he's the only SEI 4 in the world!No, he isn't. It is totally impossible for a SEI to be a 4. Every 4, without exceptions, is an intuitive type.
IEI-Fe 4w3
That is of course irrelevant, since we are talking about types here. What you believe is also irrelevant. Only truth counts, and you haven't got access to it in this case. Now, please study more, and try to learn the types correctly.Well I don't believe that. And I guess I know him better than you do.I said that he can't be, and I told you the truth. So why do you keep insisting that he is an SEI and a 4? You don't seem to be 100 % certain of any of those two claims, so why do you even claim anything? You obviously don't know what you are talking about, you are only guessing. If your dad is a SEI he is a 9. If he is a 4 he is not a SEI.Well my dad likes to feel special so he'll be glad to know he's the only SEI 4 in the world!No, he isn't. It is totally impossible for a SEI to be a 4. Every 4, without exceptions, is an intuitive type.
Code:dc(w.jr) = n kl (n + l[i]) = n²/3 = 6n+1/l[dc.w.p] = 6n'/l[dc.e $] n = l[dc.e $] + 1 n % 2' = 2l+5 l[dc.w % reference_a] = l[(3/2)√(n-dc(r))] = nl(f,p) = l[$ a] n[a] = l + (jr).c (or) n[a] = l + (jr).w.(e $-) c = √(35/11)
Phaedrus I kind of disagree. On the one hand I agree SEI-Si subtypes cannot be 4s. They're 9w1s. But SEI-Fe subtypes are likely often 4w3s. I think Johnny Depp is an example of an SEI-Fe type 4. On the boards you'll notice that when we were trying to type him the most common types that came up were SEI and IEI. This wasn't a coincidence. The fact is that SEI-Fe subtypes and IEI-Fe subtypes have certain similar characteristics, just as IEI-Ni and ILI-Ni subtypes do. Fe in Alpha pushes towards Beta and in Beta pushes towards Alpha whereas Ni pushes towards Gamma - there was some really good dichotomy charts posted once that exemplified this quite well. Socionic subtypes are important because they show how types flow between quadras rather than being distinctly uniform. While it might seem drastic to you that one socionic type can vary so much in enneagram type it's not the only one. EIIs for example. Ne-subtype =4w5 vs. Fi-subtype =9w1.I said that he can't be, and I told you the truth. So why do you keep insisting that he is an SEI and a 4? You don't seem to be 100 % certain of any of those two claims, so why do you even claim anything? You obviously don't know what you are talking about, you are only guessing. If your dad is a SEI he is a 9. If he is a 4 he is not a SEI.
Well my dad likes to feel special so he'll be glad to know he's the only SEI 4 in the world!
Good point. I totally agree with you.
Posting Permissions
