Results 1 to 40 of 52

Thread: Instinctual Stacking Confusion (Continued from Previous Conversation)

Threaded View

  1. #18
    Haikus VenusRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    TIM
    EII 4w5 Sx/So
    Posts
    311
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrrrmaid View Post
    Just wanted to respond to these because they were my words. Only they aren't at all, I pulled them both from SX 4 descriptions.
    I think archetypes are like guiding lights, it doesn't make the entirety of you. I just don't want something forced on me that doesn't belong to me. I would think others would feel similarly too...and because none of this is scientific...people have their own way of interpreting these archetypes, and imo it's fine to talk about how you personally see things, even if it differs from the way others have described it.

    Being significant is 100000% a four thing. They want to be special and not mundane.
    Yeah, well, it depends on the way "significance" is stated. I associate an overt desire to be "unique" and to be "significant" with type 3 influence. I just cannot see that in myself...

    5 being a head type, with it brings an unconscious feeling of being irredeemably and horribly broken inside, but not necessarily a conscious urge to be "unique, significant and compete." I don't care about those things. It's just...again not something I am and not something I ever have been...

    Three is about success and usefulness. Significant is about being unique and noteworthy.
    Being unique and noteworthy by playing on society's terms and "competing" and coming out the best again in the eyes of the status quo - that's 3.

    4s don't care, imo. Of course, 4 with 3 influence can be like that.

    Threes can very much care about being unique just in the way you described, but like I said, they want to be, but they don't necessarily already feel unique in the sense of being the "ugly duckling"! That's 4. Everything else...well I can see that as other types as well, including 3.

    4s are already nothing like anyone else, why bother competing? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that haha, just trying to provide I guess what they might be thinking.

    Honestly though, I don't think anyone else is not "deep" it's just that people can act in shallow, uninteresting ways at times and what 4 wants more than anything is to see your 'ugliness' if you will, they just want you to be you. The 'authentic' you. No one is 'deeper' than anyone else...

    Even as a 4 So I have an unhealthy obsession with wanting to be the best, most loved partner my boyfriend has ever had. I used that word specifically because I saw it in a type 4 description and it really stuck out and resonated with me - though I can't remember which one it was. Chestnut uses the word 'special' a lot, which basically is being used in the same way I was using 'significant' above:
    Yeah, it sounds like 3-ishness again. I mean it could be 4 but it also sounds like 3 mixed in there, which is why I don't relate to it at all.

    As for wanting to be "most loved" I mean anyone I think would like to mean the absolute world to the other person...I think. But then, I think most of these archetypes are human, anyway.

    ("Special" and "significant" don't have to be positive words here: they just mean not mundane )
    "special" and "significant" to me feels like...idk like something artificial. It's not natural. I can't relate to those words specifically. 4s hone their 'uniqueness' because they already feel ugly inside in the sense of being uglier than everyone else - and so "unique" in that way. "Special" and significant the way it is used in society usually, I associate with type 3. Special and significant in the eyes of the status quo.

    Riso & Hudson use the words "assertive", "aggressive", "dynamic" and "possessive" for sexual four. Maitri uses the word "hate", Naranjo "the mad four", Chestnut "competition" and "hostility."
    Chestnut copied from Naranjo as far as I can tell. Also, this is from word of mouth, I don't have actual proof yet - but apparently Naranjo took back his description of the SX 4 saying he didn't consider it as accurate anymore.

    Those authors may have re-stated the previous information on the enneagram types, perhaps not wanting to change much about them.

    I think there can be many variations on a type, I am not going to box "Sx 4s" into anything yet. Except maybe the very basic core.

    Maybe this is exaggerated by 8 fixes, like mentioned above, but it goes beyond just being a "stereotype" when basically every major enneagram writer says the same thing.
    I could perhaps be wrong but maybe they...
    1) copied from each other
    and 2) possibly took the loudest example of an SX 4 since it was most obvious. Like I said, spitefulness and meanness are actually pretty human...I can certainly see that someone driven by envy could behave that way.

    But the problem comes with Se PoLRs. Se PoLR descriptions explicitly state xIIs would not at all be into those things. At all.

    But since not all SX4s would be Se PoLR or even the louder version of the type...they may have been omitted from these descriptions.

    fwiw I don't see myself as aggressive in the classic sense either and I don't think anyone would describe me as that but I am very competitive, envious and spiteful.
    I know we are talking about types here but... honestly this just sounds normal. Not saying it is unrelated to type but I think sometimes people project very human things onto type. I think I would give Se PoLR 4s some leeway with that "envious and spiteful" stuff though.

    I have to check myself for all of these things all the time. I.e. on an average - unhealthy day, someone can't get complimented in front of me without me turning that inward on myself (self criticism for not being the one getting complimented) and spite for the other (immediately picking up on their flaws). When I was still in my teens and not as smooth as I am now, someone got complimented for something that was usually MY thing to get complimented for and I very loudly derided them and undermined the compliment in earshot of that person, for example. Not great but also something I still do in my head. For comparison's sake, in the same situation my 3w4 friend just talks more about her own achievements, and will one-up them and show off rather than try to drag the other down.
    I am not mean, I don't want to do something like that. Not judging you, it's just not something I would do.
    It also sounds...normal. Perhaps you might get a little exasperated with me pointing this out but...after all the e-types are universal human themes/archetypes, haha.

    Hope this didn't come across as aggressive, since I know you said you didn't want to argue. Just wanted to explain why I chose to describe sx four in the way I did. Even with Se PoLR you should still be more aggressive than other EII 4s (and noticeably more so than 9s). I also imagine most 4s have 1D Se since I associate it with IEI + EII predominantly so being Se PoLR shouldn't change much.
    I am not aggressive, using the description that I used for my last post. Unless I get hurt badly, which rarely happens, obviously. My heart has to be broken badly. Even then I wouldn't go against my values (Fi) or be cruel to someone (Se PoLR).

    Many people are aggressive, spiteful, vindictive, envious - imo most people are capable of these things...4-ishness or not. The thing with EIIs though is that they try their best to steer clear of those things. Of course extreme instances and trauma can drive any type into doing really anything, but generally speaking.

    If we go by Naranjo description, the SO 4 would be me, even though I am not Social first. I just want to make clear I am definitely not the SX 4 description lol, and the social 4 is strikingly very much like me. It was wayyy too accurate. Except my issues are not tied to the social realm as intensely as they are to the SX realm. But in my demeanor, I am absolutely the SO 4 description and not the SX 4. Which is why I don't think they necessarily got the subtype right.
    Last edited by VenusRose; 12-25-2018 at 02:31 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •