Quote Originally Posted by Contra View Post

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 I'm pretty withdrawn but I'm not super bashful or anything.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....
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.