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.
Originally Posted by Jung
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.Originally Posted by Jung
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 DarkAngelFireWolf69'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.


Reply With Quote