lol at the irony.Originally Posted by inumbra
And yeah, I've asked this question in post #37.
lol at the irony.
And yeah, I've asked this question in post #37.
Yes, but technically Fi doesn't involve its emotions in those of others either (it is a definitively subjective process and is rather split off in a sense). It rather evaluates the actions of others and acts on that evaluation, though the evaluation can definitely be flawed or motivated by an emotional stirring that acts out rashly.
But,
So Fe does seek rapport with the emotions of others and in that sense is biased towards accepting the feelings around them, following the crowd and agreeing with it, while Fi seems to splinter off and form its own feelings. Basically, feeling (Fe or Fi) implies different forms of emotional bias, so I don't agree with you at all; Fe has very little in common with enneagram 4 or 5 because it tends toward following the crowd.
You know most IEIs type as 4s. The scoreboard doesnt lie.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
It is not the base function in IEI though. Do many EIE or ESE type themselves 4 or 5? The EIE and ESE I know irl are 3s, 7s, or 1s for core type. My ESE sister may be be a 2w3. 3w2, or 7w6. core. I wrote it down somewhere and forgot what I was leaning toward. Tritype most likely one of these, 279, 369 or 379. Only considering 6 as part of her tritype since she can be a bit phobic/anxious but not when jumping out of planes, drinking alcohol mixed with water, in Mexico, or cliff diving so probably more 7 in her than 6 so 6 as a wing perhaps.
as a creative (2nd) function (SEI and IEI)
The person is sensitive to the emotional atmosphere around him, either from an individual, or a group, or even from inanimate objects such as the landscape, the state of the physical environment he happens to be in, or his own emotional associations with the place or people around him. A positive emotional atmophere is essential for his sense of well being and inner peace, and he either tries to promote it himself by directly influencing it around him, or by simply moving away from the environment or the people causing a negative emotional environment in his view.
For the SEI, this takes an on-the-spot aspect and is reflected in cracking jokes, trying to make people laugh, or simply moving away from people he perceives as affecting him negatively. For the IEI, this takes a longer-term perspective; so the focus, rather than being on the immediate emotional environment, is on the perceived longer-term emotional state of others towards the individual, and is reflected in trying to be on good terms with those he interacts with or seeking distance or protection from, or "preventively" attacking, those he sees as irremediably hostile emotionally.Edit: I looked up 369 and I can scratch that from the options. She is pretty fearless. Way more fearless than me actually. I would not do half the things she has and she has no problem exploring new places on her own.These days I just stay in the hotel and read, or look up local stuff on the internet, if I am left alone in an unfamiliar place. If I go somewhere it would be to meet up with people I know or some place local for food. I am not into exploring alone the way she is.
The individual is always in tune to the emotional flow surrounding him, and responds to it spontaneously and directly. He seeks out and creates activities where people are totally engaged in what they are doing. Something's value is directly tied to how much it arouses his or another's passion.
He is highly proactive about steering the emotional flow in the direction he himself considers ideal to a given situation. He may, for example, try to cheer people with jokes if he sees that they are too gloomy or, conversely, to get people to be serious and concentrated if they are too carefree during a crisis situation. Nevertheless, he believes emotions should be expressed as honestly as possible.
I also wouldn't feel like I missed something if I didn't visit every attraction. Even when I lived in NYC I would go to clubs where I already knew everyone. She is a bartender and likes to check out local clubs that she has read about and will go in all alone and have a dozen friends in five minutes.
https://waysofwisdom.wordpress.com/2...ypes-with-a-3/
Last edited by Aylen; 03-22-2015 at 01:35 PM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Have you seen "American Idol" or any of the knock offs?
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Common socionics - enneagram correlations:
Alpha:
ILE - 7w8, 3w4 (less likely 7w6, 3w2, maybe even 5w6)
ESE - 2w3, 3w2, (7w6?)
LII - 5w6, 1w9, (9w1?)
SEI - E9, E4, (6w7?)
Beta:
IEI - E4, E9, (E6, *maybe* 5w4)
SLE - 7w8, 8w7, 3w2, (7w6)
EIE - 2w3, E3, (E7, 6w7, 4w3)
LSI - E1, 6w5
Gamma:
ILI - 5w4, (5w6)
SEE- 6w7, 7w6, E3, (sometimes 7w8 or 9w8)
LIE - 3w4, 8w9, 6w7 (E7 unlikely imo)
ESI - E6, (2w1)
Delta
IEE - 6w7, 7w6, ( E9)
LSE - 1w2, 3w2, 8w9, (E6)
EII - 1w9, 1w2, 9w1 ( 2w1, maybe E4)
SLI - 9w8, (5w6?)
Most ESI's I've seen seem e6>e9 almost uniformly. I haven't seen 1s or 2s (maybe one xSI E1 irl) even though the former matches up well with the caricature. People expect ESI's to be ultra-competent hardasses but most just seem rigid and derpy to me and somewhat fearful, plain even. The most pugnacious brand of ESI seems e6 to me usually.
Last edited by suedehead; 03-22-2015 at 08:53 PM.
I made a mistake, I haven't seen 1's either. But I did 2w1's.
yeah for example my mother may be ESI 2w1
No. You mentioned an IEI without Fi. And that's exactly what I explained, something that resembles base Fe (ignoring Fi), which has little in common with enneagram 4 or 5.
Creative Fe on the other hand, as Aylen posted, does a lot more individual emotional processing and has a lot in common with enneagram 4 and very little to do with being emotionally disconnected (enneagram 5).
Basically, your reasoning is insufficient to justify the claim that xEIs can be enneagram 5.
I do think there might be some cases of deep Ni subtypes IEI's who are probably 5w4 (Thom Yorke, Kurt Cobain).
THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS WHO I'VE KNOWN.
Jk, ESI's are the only type I feel very uncertain about recognizing. The ones I do recognize seem almost exclusively e6 after prolonged interaction. E6's are weird, they can be quickly mixed for something else (besides like every 3rd human is e6 ...which is why the world sucks)
An xEI with neglected Fi will still have Fe creative. I never said anything about Fe base.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I got wasted and typed everyone at the party along with the lads who helped me out of the ditch after puking NOW ACCEPT MY TYPINGS AND ASSERTIONS ON ENNEA-SOCIO CORRelATES BASED ON MY SAY-SOs
Maybe, but those people are highly introverted to the point that a creative function isn't all that differentiated. One could argue they are ILI-Ni just the same.
If you take Fe and remove Fi from it, you get Fe base, not creative Fe. There's not much more to it; you just don't bother to understand how these concepts actually apply. And I can't help you with that, if you can't be bothered.
So whatever then,,,
this site http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page9.html describes how the MBTI functions can be linked to the enneagram:
Function-Attitude Name Point Extraverted Sensation Se Seven Extraverted Intuition Ne Four Extraverted Thinking Te One Extraverted Feeling Fe Two Introverted Sensation Si Eight Introverted Intuition Ni Nine Introverted Thinking Ti Five Introverted Feeling Fi Six Extraverted Moving
& Extraverted PersonaMe Three
--
so if you take these function-attitudes to be the same as socionics functions, and take each type to be their BASE, you get:
Ne base (ILE, IEE)
Enneagram 4 (Individualist)
Se base (SEE, SLE)
Enneagram 7 (Enthusiast)
Te base (LSE, LIE)
Enneagram 1 (Reformer)
Fe base (ESE, EIE)
Enneagram 2 (Helper)
Si base (SLI, SEI)
Enneagram 8 (Challenger)
Ni base (IEI, ILI)
Enneagram 9 (Peacemaker)
Fi base (EII, ESI)
Enneagram 6 (Loyalist)
Ti base (LII, LSI)
Enneagram 5 (Investigator)
Alternatively if you take each type to be their RESTRICTIVE (ignoring) function, what they are to backup their base:
Ni ignoring (ILE, IEE)
Enneagram 9 (Peacemaker) Si ignoring (SEE, SLE)
Enneagram 8 (Challenger) Ti ignoring (LSE, LIE)
Enneagram 5 (Investigator) Fi ignoring (ESE, EIE)
Enneagram 6 (Loyalist) Se ignoring (SLI, SEI)
Enneagram 7 (Enthusiast) Ne ignoring (IEI, ILI)
Enneagram 4 (Individualist) Fe ignoring (EII, ESI)
Enneagram 2 (Helper) Te ignoring (LII, LSI)
Enneagram 1 (Reformer)
And if you take each type to be their ROLE function, their social persona:
Se Role (ILE, IEE)
Enneagram 7 (Enthusiast) Ne Role (SEE, SLE)
Enneagram 4 (Individualist) Fe Role (LSE, LIE)
Enneagram 2 (Helper) Te Role (ESE, EIE)
Enneagram 1 (Reformer) Ni Role (SLI, SEI)
Enneagram 9 (Peacemaker) Si Role (IEI, ILI)
Enneagram 8 (Challenger) Ti Role (EII, ESI)
Enneagram 5 (Investigator) Fi Role (LII, LSI)
Enneagram 6 (Loyalist)
Finally if you take each type to be their SUGGESTIVE function, the core of themselves and the source of their libido energy:
Si Suggestive (ILE, IEE)
Enneagram 8 (Challenger) Ni Suggestive (SEE, SLE)
Enneagram 9 (Peacemaker) Fi Suggestive (LSE, LIE)
Enneagram 6 (Loyalist) Ti Suggestive (ESE, EIE)
Enneagram 5 (Investigator) Ne Suggestive (SLI, SEI)
Enneagram 4 (Individualist) Se Suggestive (IEI, ILI)
Enneagram 7 (Enthusiast) Te Suggestive (EII, ESI)
Enneagram 1 (Reformer) Fe Suggestive (LII, LSI)
Enneagram 2 (Helper)
Last edited by ConcreteButterfly; 04-03-2015 at 10:25 AM.
Nah man, you just kinda assumed you understood what I was saying and ran with it. Plenty of Xeis have shit Fi, if you read my initial response thats what I was talking about.
And Fe creative without Fi doesnt magically become Fe base. Its explicit that I was talking about Xeis. You made the irrational leap that Fe creative without Fi is Fe base. And then you tell me I dont know how things apply. Which is fine, because at least I can read.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I've once found this statistics, but it's not to be taken as a fact:
6W7 15,5
1W2 9,9
2W1 9,9
9W1 8,9
1W9 8,6
3W2 8,6
7W6 8,0
6W5 6,2
2W3 4,7
9W8 4,1
5W6 3,6
8W9 3,3
8W7 2,5
7W8 2,3
4W3 1,7
3W4 1,1
4W5 0,8
5W4 0,3
God why even bother with posting such bollocks from whatever bullshit site. Just no.
I thought it was interesting that's why I shared, maybe there is some truth to it.
I thought it was interesting too.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I really think there's zero question there are different emphases/presentations of the enneagram types. Aka how you map the overall structure to reality and justify that mapping differs depending on what you want to say about reality.
And yes I've "resolved" the inconsistencies typical to my TIM,but I also get the sense my version makes high level statements rather than capturing the empirical nuances of people, which often fit into a messier system, if it can even be called a system.
You have the choice of creating categories because hey, it works intuitively and so forth, vs having a truly perfect structural reason for placing a category in a given place.
Good chance I actually could have a 1w9 floating around there in tritype.
No way : P
As long as we're on this topic, Is ENTj e1 a thing? I think I might be a 145 or something like that....
It's possible imo, although not common. The bigger problem is the tritype - kinda very withdrawn...How sure are you about it?
I see. I could also be a 584. I don't know.
I'm not sure at all. I kind of hate enneagram for the same reasons that chemical finds it useful. It's this subjective rendering of organization that is more of a 'fun' tool that may provide an insight or two about sociotypes. The main problem is finding convergence among cases; it seems that two examples of e1s can look very different mainly due to the lack of the cognitive element that socionics has. Enneagram has about the same power as a person with observational abilities and a decent vocabulary whereas it seems socionics gets at something more hidden.
Anyway, all of that to say that I don't even know what the individual types look like. I think most people would put me as either a 584, 583, 145, or 135. I'm pretty withdrawn but I'm not super bashful or anything. I'm also not as shy and intimidated as the 5 is often described though I'm probably quite a bit more abstract than the average LIE if I were to guess.
Not trying to highjack this thread or anything....
Maybe, maybe, too many maybe's.
OK. So in terms of the how/why (socionics vs enneagram), why is LSI E8 a problem for you? Explain like you did with IEI E8.
I know another ILI E4 though she's got a lot of Fi, EII isn't out of the question.okay I'm not the smartest person ever but I know myself pretty well, and from what I can gather I'd be ILI in socionics and 4 in enneagram. I don't see what else I would be (possibly SLI, I guess)
am I really mistyped though? lol I spent... way too much time figuring it out, and digging through bullshit, and admitting I wasn't good at things I'd like to be, etc. Maybe the system is unusable
As long as a theory is directly pointing to something real, it's fine and I do think socionics for example does talk about some real things. That post I responded to, however, went way too far in the theoretical realm, way past the point where we can link it to evidence directly.lol calling it bollocks doesn't make it so... evidence, Myst!
oh wait... this is all theoretical systemization based on individual speculation... wait, wait... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE? Whatever shall we do!
you can't actually definitively identify even one person who is one type for sure. take it with a grain of salt, yo.
So that's my evidence for it being bollocks haha (to be precise, it's highly unlikely that such theorizing is actually valid when checked out in reality)
Sure two E1s can look very different, this is normal. Same thing in Socionics, two people of the same socionics type can and will look very different. Enneagram does get at something deeper/hidden too. It doesn't look like you know Enneagram very well, though. The shared element between the people of the same type is not a cognitive one like in Socionics but it's still there.
Also, sure maybe some people figure out those things without using Enneagram but not everyone, apparently. I certainly didn't. I mean I did notice things about myself before getting into typology but I didn't have an explanation for them because I didn't take the time to observe patterns in my life. Enneagram was a good quick shortcut for recognizing themAt the same time, Socionics is also not that terribly unique, some of its principles can be found elsewhere, independent of Socionics.
Last edited by Myst; 03-24-2015 at 04:16 AM.
Anyway, Myst, I think if someone insisted a 8w7-LSI is not a thing, they should at least be able to imagine a 7w8 LSI with a strong 8 wing, heh. Albeit some cannot see that either, and would insist Ti must be 5 or 6 if a head type.Personally think 7 has become over-associated with a fluttery butterfly, and that people don't think about it creatively enough. For one thing, sometimes it's not really clear why some portrayals of 7 belong in the head triad, it seems like it's a sorry excuse to just say they're anxious, take a taste in everything, thus have "head energy" or something. Seems more like an anxious instinctual type to me that you're throwing into type 7 because it doesn't match the common portrayals of 8, 9, or 1.
I think the ultimate thing regarding what cognitive type a type 8 (which is a very classic embodiment of the instinctual center) can be is this: here's a portrayal of the instinctual/physical center's rough version based on the work of Gurdjieff, at least according to Wiki:
Now, the modern enneagram authors and the semi-modern ones definitely don't go exactly by this definition. But, it has obvious overlaps with theirs as well, generally speaking, and it's easy to see some association to the following thingsMoving or physical center. This brain is located in the spinal column. This brain makes beings capable of physical actions. Some, but not all, Fourth Way schools have further divided this Center into three distinct parts:
- Motor: Controls motor functions. The acts of walking, the physical aspects of talking, as well as even functions that are considered "reflexive," are all part of this sub-center.
- Instinctive: Controls faculties which are completely involuntary. This does not typically encompass "knee-jerk" reactions, nor what we would typically consider reflexes. A common example of the functioning of this center is the contracting of blood vessels to facilitate the pumping of blood.
- Sexual. Controls sexual functions.
Anyway, the point is that instinct, bodily/motor aspects of awareness are all associated to sensation in Jung, albeit it's not equivalent with any of them.
Extraverts are generally more in tune with stimulus-seeking affect (contrasted with introversion, which is, in part, unrelatedness with the object, aka enneatype 5 in one interpretation....which can be seen in the 8/5 axis).
Assuming all this, though, how can the E9 be allowably something like a Ni-base? Well, two schools on this: one is to just throw caution to the wind and say the 369 are so all round that they can be anything. Another is to say 369 each are out of touch with their center of intelligence due to being stuck "in the middle" of their center...so 9 may be instinctually repressed, 3 may have trouble knowing what they feel, 6 might have trouble knowing what they think.
Anyway, I think if you want to be very very proper, you could say LSI-Se is more likely to be a 7w8 than a 8. Of course there are people who assume 7s are extraverts, but to be perfectly honest, I think that's going a bit far.
I think it's more accurate to associate things like DCNH to enneagram orientation than TIM, which really should be more high level information orientation differences, less trait-theoretic personality-level differences. So for instance, a LSI/C-subtype might look rather 7-like but the way they think might very well be TiSe. The extent to which an information element contributes to one's personal energy is quite a separate story from the higher level details of how one thinks. Albeit, I still think to some good extent, certain TIM are more likely for certain enneatypes.
Another option (which you might not be open to) is to investigate Gulenko's energy type idea, albeit not the exact model necessarily. What if someone's personal energy is very instinctual, but the way they think on a higher level doesn't match the intuitive association one would make to that?
I'm not sure about his exact model but his idea seems to have something real to it to be perfectly honest.
But then again, I think just getting how DCNH differs in its seeming approach from standard high level information differences in TIM can get one the same benefit without bothering with the energy type stuff.
This is where I make distinctions like saying Ti is not rigid, people are rigid. Ti is just a way of making sense of things a certain way, and I don't think rigidity really describes information so much as the style of a person who constructs the information. DCNH N-Ti is indeed rigid, because that is a more trait-theoretic portrayal of Ti, aka, pedantic, rigid, exacting, etc.
One of the places people run into problems is when they realize that the centers-based definitions of types do not necessarily consistently agree with the more emotive disposition based descriptions of the types.
Last edited by chemical; 03-24-2015 at 03:31 PM.
I feel the opposite, that the enneagram goes deeper into motivations and neurosis, and sociotypes are more vague and questionable. But I don't care about only one thing or the other, that doesn't say nearly enough about the person, it has to be combined.
If you don't know what the individual types look like at all, then I can imagine the confusion and seeing no point in it . But if you do, then you start to see a neat pattern like in socionics. Lot's of LIE's are probably sp 3w4 and end up looking like e1's for example.
Don't know about your tritype, one of those is probably correct.
@Contra I have heard very plausible depictions of how the 4/1 gradient can show up in a Jungian Te/Fi gradient.
I think it really depends what your definition of E1 is. I can see why some may define it in a way making some versions of Te incompatible with it.
You can say this might be a case where TIM fits LIE but persona is more like an MBTI INTJ or something.
Yeah. Otoh, I actually don't always know where Ti ends and Se starts, in my own case. E.g. You can just move or you can move with precision, there's a difference.Or another example, you can go navigate around by just direct sensory input or your brain can also process the Ti aspects and use them for navigation just as successfully. And it's still linked to body/motor stuff because you are also moving around.
Yeah. As for myself, I'm somewhere exactly on that axis. Though definitely closer to 8.Extraverts are generally more in tune with stimulus-seeking affect (contrasted with introversion, which is, in part, unrelatedness with the object, aka enneatype 5 in one interpretation....which can be seen in the 8/5 axis).
I talked about my instinctual version of Ti in this thread already. Of course Se too but I specifically mentioned that because Ti isn't usually seen that way, it's usually seen as more mental for some reason, praytell why though. Mine is quite action oriented a lot of the time but even when just making judgments, a lot of the time it's done in an instinctual way. Meaning I don't actually have that mental type of thinking going on in my head, just an empty mind. The mental version of Ti which I also have is linked to my line to enneagram 5, yep.Another option (which you might not be open to) is to investigate Gulenko's energy type idea, albeit not the exact model necessarily. What if someone's personal energy is very instinctual, but the way they think on a higher level doesn't match the intuitive association one would make to that?
Make sense?
Yeah, well, these functions have too much stuff encapsulated in them. There's the cognitive information content itself and then there is the mindset it can be processed with. And I don't know what else.This is where I make distinctions like saying Ti is not rigid, people are rigid. Ti is just a way of making sense of things a certain way, and I don't think rigidity really describes information so much as the style of a person who constructs the information. DCNH N-Ti is indeed rigid, because that is a more trait-theoretic portrayal of Ti, aka, pedantic, rigid, exacting, etc.
BTW @Contra in case you're looking for references, Naranjo suggests Jung's extraverted thinking type is the closest fit to his enneagram 1 character (the guy who brought enneagram to the USA as far as I know).
Look up the enneagram descriptions on Typewatch and you'll see instances of darya's perspective perhaps. Kant is mentioned as a good instance of 1w9 there and we all know he's the Ti-dom posterboy for Jung and many others.
(Naranjo would call Kant a 6, BTW)
The "Personality Types" enneagram book by Don Riso links the jungian function attitudes to enneagram like so:
Function-Attitude Name Point Extraverted Sensation Se Seven Extraverted Intuition Ne Eight Extraverted Thinking Te One Extraverted Feeling Fe Two Introverted Sensation Si Nine Introverted Intuition Ni Four Introverted Thinking Ti Five Introverted Feeling Fi Six None - Three
personally I think this is a better correlation than the one on http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page9.html that I posted before (http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1080069)
so again, if you take these function attitudes to be the same as socionics functions, and each type to be their BASE function, you get:
Ne base (ILE, IEE)
Enneagram 8 (Challenger) Se base (SEE, SLE)
Enneagram 7 (Enthusiast)
Te base (LSE, LIE)
Enneagram 1 (Reformer)
Fe base (ESE, EIE)
Enneagram 2 (Helper)
Si base (SLI, SEI)
Enneagram 9 (Peacemaker) Ni base (IEI, ILI)
Enneagram 4 (Individualist) Fi base (EII, ESI)
Enneagram 6 (Loyalist)
Ti base (LII, LSI)
Enneagram 5 (Investigator)
Alternatively if you take each type to be their RESTRICTIVE (ignoring) function, what they are to backup their base:
Ni ignoring (ILE, IEE)
Enneagram 4 (Individualist) Si ignoring (SEE, SLE)
Enneagram 9 (Peacemaker) Ti ignoring (LSE, LIE)
Enneagram 5 (Investigator) Fi ignoring (ESE, EIE)
Enneagram 6 (Loyalist) Se ignoring (SLI, SEI)
Enneagram 7 (Enthusiast) Ne ignoring (IEI, ILI)
Enneagram 8 (Challenger) Fe ignoring (EII, ESI)
Enneagram 2 (Helper) Te ignoring (LII, LSI)
Enneagram 1 (Reformer)
And if you take each type to be their ROLE function, their social persona:
Se Role (ILE, IEE)
Enneagram 7 (Enthusiast) Ne Role (SEE, SLE)
Enneagram 8 (Challenger) Fe Role (LSE, LIE)
Enneagram 2 (Helper) Te Role (ESE, EIE)
Enneagram 1 (Reformer) Ni Role (SLI, SEI)
Enneagram 4 (Individualist) Si Role (IEI, ILI)
Enneagram 9 (Peacemaker) Ti Role (EII, ESI)
Enneagram 5 (Investigator) Fi Role (LII, LSI)
Enneagram 6 (Loyalist)
Finally if you take each type to be their SUGGESTIVE function, the core of themselves and the source of their libido energy:
@Aylen @Spider @Myst what do you guys think? is this a better correlation?
Si Suggestive (ILE, IEE)
Enneagram 9 (Peacemaker) Ni Suggestive (SEE, SLE)
Enneagram 4 (Individualist) Fi Suggestive (LSE, LIE)
Enneagram 6 (Loyalist) Ti Suggestive (ESE, EIE)
Enneagram 5 (Investigator) Ne Suggestive (SLI, SEI)
Enneagram 8 (Challenger) Se Suggestive (IEI, ILI)
Enneagram 7 (Enthusiast) Te Suggestive (EII, ESI)
Enneagram 1 (Reformer) Fe Suggestive (LII, LSI)
Enneagram 2 (Helper)
Three - none
@ConcreteButterfly
I will look again once I am fully awake.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
