SEE enneagram types

[kuno]

Lately online I’ve been seeing a lot of talk about whether SEE can truly be any enneagram type aside from 8.

I previously used to consider types 8, 2, and 3 possible for SEE but nowadays I’m not so sure, after reading through a few different arguments against SEE 2 or SEE 3. It sort of makes sense, considering that Se base types tend to be reckless, they often run on their own sheer willpower, and they’re likely to not care much about what others think.

In contrast, types 2 and 3 very much DO care about what other people think. Twos are held captive by their desire to be loved, appreciated and desired by others based on their actions, their sexual prowess, their social status, or simply their amiability (read: cuteness), and if they are not loved by others, they feel deflated and unfulfilled. While I can sort of see the Sociotype ESFp being sx2 (the most emotionally AND physically intense, seductive, and passionate Two subtype), even the sx2 is held prisoner by how valued they are by others, and they ultimately mold themselves to others’ likings to some extent.

Threes are held captive by society’s opinions, but not in order to feel loved, but rather to seek successful. I can imagine that Threes tend to be either good with Se or simply Se-valuing. However, they very much care about social graces and appearances so long as they help accomplish their goals of seeming successful and attractive (a slight exception can be made for sp3, which tends to be less ostentatious due to the more introverted and self-concerned sp nature).

Se bases may appeal to some of the mechanisms of types 2 and 3, but after reading some arguments against SEE 2 or 3, I suddenly have a hard time allowing myself to believe that they would be so concerned with others’ desires, needs, and opinions just to feel fulfilled. Se bases are more naturally confident and powerful, even if ethical. Therefore many people in online typology communities nowadays seem to only advocate for ESFp being enneatype 8.

However, if anyone has any counter-arguments, I’d like to hear them!

[kuno]

I almost forgot to mention that I also believed SEE can be sx4. There have been a lot of people arguing against this combination, and I understand their arguments, but I feel like in practice the combo does work, strangely enough. So I also believe in sx4 SEE, unless I’m just thinking of ESI-Se instead of SEE.

[Muira]

SEE = sx8 and so8

E3 relates to external conformity, which is Te/Fe base

E2 Is like E3 if they were sorta cocky, and excellent at social persuasion, but still for love and admiration, thus their self value being determined by other people(EJ temperament, Ego base placement).


A SEE is ultimately going to have related goals and share the same fixation as SLE, however they would just have an entirely different approach. Se base still isn't concerned with their self value having anything to do with external perception, and really care more about money, fashion, etc truly on a individualistic level.

An SEE would say, "If you loved me, you'd sleep with me." While a E2 and a Fe base would say, "If you sleep with me, you'd love me."

Again, sx8 is very mistaken for sx2, only having a slight difference, one is more rational than the other.

The difference in placement shows that SEE will still seek out money as a main fixation, pride themselves in their provocative nature, will still be indulgent, etc no matter what. Their ability to seduce, to pull people in, is used for the same goal as why an SLE will be helpful to solve issues, etc.

Thus, SEE still be E8

[Muira]

I almost forgot to mention that I also believed SEE can be sx4. There have been a lot of people arguing against this combination, and I understand their arguments, but I feel like in practice the combo does work, strangely enough. So I also believe in sx4 SEE, unless I’m just thinking of ESI-Se instead of SEE.

Sx4 is too intellectual in the sense they are too rational, they still internalize, their ego may become the issue. Which contradicts SEE being cautious in the perception of their relations to others as a tool to serve their Se, but not a main fixation.

[kuno]

An SEE would say, "If you loved me, you'd sleep with me." While a E2 and a Fe base would say, "If you sleep with me, you'd love me."

That whole argument of yours in the post is wonderfully worded, and so concise compared to the other ones I’ve read! But I especially love this quoted part because it succinctly describes how SEE’s motives differ from the sx2’s motives. I’m very convinced now that SEE is not E2.

[Squirrel]

Is the new trend in Typology communities to consider that types work with one function and one specific form that cannot be deviated from?
If so, I don't regret not following these communities recently

[Muira]

Is the new trend in Typology communities to consider that types work with one function and one specific form that cannot be deviated from?
If so, I don't regret not following these communities recently

It's basically coming from the notion that base functions correlate to the fixations of Naranjo's enneagram, coming from classic socionics or other rigid/conservative variations of socionics.


But also it makes typing in general much easier/simpler, so some people like it

[kuno]

@Squirrel (I can’t quote your post for some reason)

Yes, there has been a wave of “correlationists” trying to prove why certain type combinations work or don’t work. I have to admit I agree with some correlations, but sometimes it does get annoying when they narrow down every Sociotype to just ONE enneagram subtype. It seems too narrow to me. I’m trying to balance out what I believe vs what they believe, if that makes sense. Like, I’m trying to think for myself, which isn’t always easy for me when it comes to complex logical theories such as these.

I think correlationists tend to subscribe to Naranjo’s interpretation of the Enneagram, which I’m not always a fan of, and thus is why I try not to take all these correlations TOO seriously. Naranjo’s descriptions can be overly dramatic and caricature-ish, so I don’t always understand what he is trying to say (even when I read his original writings in Spanish). I need to see real examples.

[Squirrel]

It's basically coming from the notion that base functions correlate to the fixations of Naranjo's enneagram, coming from classic socionics or other rigid/conservative variations of socionics.


But also it makes typing in general much easier/simpler, so some people like it

Make it narrow-minded, not simpler

[Squirrel]

@Squirrel (I can’t quote your post for some reason)

Yes, there has been a wave of “correlationists” trying to prove why certain type combinations work or don’t work. I have to admit I agree with some correlations, but sometimes it does get annoying when they narrow down every Sociotype to just ONE enneagram subtype. It seems too narrow to me. I’m trying to balance out what I believe vs what they believe, if that makes sense. Like, I’m trying to think for myself, which isn’t always easy for me when it comes to complex logical theories such as these.

I think correlationists tend to subscribe to Naranjo’s interpretation of the Enneagram, which I’m not always a fan of, and thus is why I try not to take all these correlations TOO seriously. Naranjo’s descriptions can be overly dramatic and caricature-ish, so I don’t always understand what he is trying to say (even when I read his original writings in Spanish). I need to see real examples.

You probably clicked the "Reply" button instead of the "Reply with Quote" button.

I read about some of these associations, but limiting type to one function and one form is unrealistic

Naranjo's writings focus specifically on less healthy and psychologically ill people, so the higher the level of health , the less clear the type in the person

If you read books of the subtypes for each enneagram, there are examples of real and fictional characters for each subtype, I personally found it really helpful when I read some of them.

[Muira]

Make it narrow-minded, not simpler

But it doesn't deny the fact there is a reason why people rather take a corelationist approach, there is at least some nuance to their points as the “objective truth” is hard to find in an entirely theoretical system that lacks empirical evidence(as Sub has stated).

Really in the end of the day, we are free to arrive at any conclusion we want.

So you could even say that rejecting correlations entirely for the belief in the notion that any type can be any type can also be narrow-minded as well. So as long as we at least hear each other out fully, and actually try to process what the other person is saying and genuinely reconsider our previous conclusions, we aren't really close minded.

[Muira]

@Squirrel (I can’t quote your post for some reason)

Yes, there has been a wave of “correlationists” trying to prove why certain type combinations work or don’t work. I have to admit I agree with some correlations, but sometimes it does get annoying when they narrow down every Sociotype to just ONE enneagram subtype. It seems too narrow to me. I’m trying to balance out what I believe vs what they believe, if that makes sense. Like, I’m trying to think for myself, which isn’t always easy for me when it comes to complex logical theories such as these.

I think correlationists tend to subscribe to Naranjo’s interpretation of the Enneagram, which I’m not always a fan of, and thus is why I try not to take all these correlations TOO seriously. Naranjo’s descriptions can be overly dramatic and caricature-ish, so I don’t always understand what he is trying to say (even when I read his original writings in Spanish). I need to see real examples.

But also from a corelationist perspective, they fallow Naranjo because he is what made enneagram what it is. As Ichazo's enneagram was extremely general, so Naranjo wanted to make it where it applied to mental conditions and to explain why types act the way they do.

Like socionics, it emphasizes why people do the things they do, yes two types can do the same thing but may have completely different intentions for two different fixations/behaviors.

However for other enneagram variations that are vastly more ambiguous or general, then corelaionists don't have much of a standing as they would with the standardized sources(classic socionics, naranjo, & the one who stared this mess to begin with, Big daddy carl jung).

Some people don't want standardized systems because they want to be able to not restrict their ways of thinking, others want people to use the original sources material to avoid confusion, etc.

[kuno]

@Squirrel @coquette You've both helped me understand the appeal of Naranjo more. Unfortunately his descriptions don't always make sense to me, and even looking at his subtype descriptions from a correlationist's perspective, I still don't know how to form an overall picture of what he is describing. Or well, I can, but... it's a hazy image. I only understand it better when I see his descriptions expressed in real life people or in fictional characters.

I might go by Squirrel's approach by reading books based on each Enneagram type. Those seem a lot more in-depth. Sometimes I enjoy the more general descriptions of Ichazo and other Enneagram sources, but sometimes I want a deeper look that's a little more sober than Naranjo's writings. Maybe it's precisely because he looks at the most unhealthy manifestations of each subtype that I struggle to understand what he is describing. Most people are not that unhealthy, or they at least hide their "unhealthy" traits from the public eye.

Thinking about it, I think Naranjo's descriptions, as dramatic as they are, are helpful because they are in-depth, and they underline certain traits and habits to look for in a person and connect them to a specific mechanism. Naranjo seems to do this a lot more adeptly than other sources, even if his descriptions sometimes sound a bit goofy. He is Hispanic after all, and Hispanic people can be rather... dramatic. LOL

I guess I'm still trying to make sense of everything. Maybe I'm just 4L after all lmao

[Muira]

@Squirrel @coquette You've both helped me understand the appeal of Naranjo more. Unfortunately his descriptions don't always make sense to me, and even looking at his subtype descriptions from a correlationist's perspective, I still don't know how to form an overall picture of what he is describing. Or well, I can, but... it's a hazy image. I only understand it better when I see his descriptions expressed in real life people or in fictional characters.

I might go by Squirrel's approach by reading books based on each Enneagram type. Those seem a lot more in-depth. Sometimes I enjoy the more general descriptions of Ichazo and other Enneagram sources, but sometimes I want a deeper look that's a little more sober than Naranjo's writings. Maybe it's precisely because he looks at the most unhealthy manifestations of each subtype that I struggle to understand what he is describing. Most people are not that unhealthy, or they at least hide their "unhealthy" traits from the public eye.

Thinking about it, I think Naranjo's descriptions, as dramatic as they are, are helpful because they are in-depth, and they underline certain traits and habits to look for in a person and connect them to a specific mechanism. Naranjo seems to do this a lot more adeptly than other sources, even if his descriptions sometimes sound a bit goofy. He is Hispanic after all, and Hispanic people can be rather... dramatic. LOL

I guess I'm still trying to make sense of everything. Maybe I'm just 4L after all lmao

I used to joke about what dick size each type would have, we aren't too far off with people assigning sexes to archetypes now

[kuno]

I used to joke about what dick size each type would have, we aren't too far off with people assigning sexes to archetypes now

OMG which types have the biggest dicks and which have the smallest?! I have to know

[Muira]

OMG which types have the biggest dicks and which have the smallest?! I have to know

#1 has to be SEE

Then SLE, ESI, ESE, SEI, etc.

Pretty much it's stereotypically S types but I have no idea where this came from but it's funny

[Squirrel]

I was reading 2 So part of E2 book

Dunno how isn't this Subtype suitable for SEE