Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply. To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
T O P I C R E V I E W
bear
Posted - 08 Aug 2004 : 12:46:31 AM see intro in gut triad thread
additional general note - there are 2 subtypes for each type that are quite representative of the type, and the other tends to turn the type upside down. Like the sexual 6 - the counterphobic 6, or the counter-gluttony of the social 7, or the counter-vanity of the self-pres 3.
2s generally - "helper" is not a good word for 2. They're not really helpful but strategically helpful. Inconsistent with offers of help.
2 sexual - Seducer. Expression of feeling to get your allegiances. Dangerous beauty - needs to have a hold of you, might eat you up. NN to seduce, desire for other. Helen of Troy - woman for whom men went to war and lost their lives. Wants EVERYTHING - wants someone to give them everything - it might be material, might be pampering, whatever - but they want everything to come from the other. The dumb blond - doesn't need to develop intelligence.
2 social - Wants to be important, leader type. Ambition to stand above, have influence and advantages. Stuffy. More civilized, less voluptuous than SX, more adult than SP.
2 self-pres - more childlike than the other two subtypes. Cuteness, less adult. "Infantile" by psychoanaytic standards. "ME" is the most important, in a child like way, a child-like importance. Wants to be loved just for being. The love need is quite naked. They use remaining little for gain. Pretend to be unadulterated.
3 self-pres - has the vanity of having no vanity. So determined to be good, to be how a person should be (good housewife, good father, good worker, good monk, etc) and that implies vanity. Difficult to recognize SP 3 as a 3. NN is to be good. Security - autonomy - taking care of one self. Do for self 1st. The kind of person that you go to for advice.
3 sexual - wants to be good in a different sense of the word - beautiful, attractive, masculine or feminine depending on gender. They are pleasers. It doesn't have to be sexualized - it's way more subtle than that. A woman might have a passion for family and being so good, needing those close to her to see her as wonderful.
3 social - Corporate greed, so concentrated on doing something right that they don't see the flaws in their methods. Compassion for brilliance, doing job as best as can be done. Worldliness. Prestige - need everone's approval, not just some people's. Isn't in DSM IV as having anything wrong with this type[this note may apply to 3s in general].
4s generally - the subtypes among 4s are more differentiated than with other enneatypes - more striking differences between these.
4 social - laments too much, too weepy, too often the victim, self-sabotaging, oversensitive, suffering more than others. NN to suffer - a child suffers to attract mother's love/attention - the way to happiness is through tears. Depends too much on others to ease suffering. Feels guilty for any wish. Most shameful. NN for self-abasement, compares self to others and winds up at the bottom of the ladder. Uncompetitive, insisting something's wrong with me.
4 self-pres Loves suffering. Person who's learned to swallow a lot. Has learned to endure pain without wincing. "see how much I don't complain, don't ask for things - can you love me now??" Passion/NN is to endure - makes a career of enduring. Trains self in pain, like Lawrence of Arabia putting out the match with his fingers, able to endure the desert even the Arabs couldn't. Masochism.
4 sexual - Shameless. Even if it's shameful, I will stil get what I want, do anything to satisfy my desires. The more I complain, the more I get (this strategy works well as child, but not as adult). Viking ENVY, cannabalistic drive, competitive hate. Oral aggression - wishing mixed with anger. Sin of Cain - I envy you therefore I kill you. If I envy wealth, I start a revolution. Hateful, outspoken with anger, envy as competition.
5w4 sx/sp
25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First)
Quebranta
Posted - 30 Mar 2010 : 11:23:10 AM
quote:Originally posted by Gontxu
(wing 4, though he doesn´t believe much in the ¨wings¨theory. He works 100% with Instinctual Subtypes))
Yeah, and that's quite strange. I think his theory is compatible with the wings theory.
I mean, Naranjo says that each type is result of an inner conflict between the 2 adjacent types. Hence, they are "part" of what our core personality is. And we also know that in our world, absolute precision doesn't exist, so it's normal to have a tendency or a preference (a wing) that is weaker or stronger depending on the person.
Anyway I share his skepticism when it comes to typing! Knowing your wing is very useful but, when you have to type yourself or others, I believe that the main type MUST be enough. I've read some people say that their main type description doesn't strike but when they put the wing everything makes sense... and that's kind of tricky, imo.
Gontxu
Posted - 29 Mar 2010 : 2:56:52 PM One of the most dinstinctive traits I noticed in Sp 2 are the ¨TEMPER TANTRUMS¨. Probably is this what makes them appear ¨childish¨...I remember hearing Naranjo say that they fit the ¨Spoiled Brat¨ archetype.(Daddy´s Little Princess/The Prince Of The House)
-By the way, for those who were curious about it, Claudio Naranjo is a Social 5 (wing 4, though he doesn´t believe much in the ¨wings¨theory. He works 100% with Instinctual Subtypes)).
GONTXU
LET IT BE E 3 (SX / SO/ SP ) ENFJ
enneathing
Posted - 24 Mar 2010 : 12:36:49 PM
quote:2 self-pres - more childlike than the other two subtypes. Cuteness, less adult. "Infantile" by psychoanaytic standards. "ME" is the most important, in a child like way, a child-like importance. Wants to be loved just for being. The love need is quite naked. They use remaining little for gain. Pretend to be unadulterated.
I know a self typed 2w3 who's probably sp/so and this description doesn't really suit him. I would say he might actually be the least ostensibly 2ish of the 2s I know. There's the 'entitlement', but I'd also say he's probably more adult like than the other 2s I know. There's a lot of focus on work, having enough etc.
Crooner
Posted - 24 Mar 2010 : 12:47:49 AM
quote:Originally posted by lauratracy
Cool... can i be part of the experiment?
Hello Laura,
Welcome back to the Board. You can see that the postings were from 2004. Haven’t heard much about the research since.
Crooner
lauratracy
Posted - 23 Mar 2010 : 12:27:14 PM
quote:Originally posted by Crooner
EI is collaborating with a private psychometrics firm (that has a proprietary Belbin-like test) to correlate the nine EnneaTypes with characteristics identified in the private firm’s Flagship testing instrument. I’m given to understand that this private firm has solid standing with the international business community.
Anyway, I acceded to be one of about 300 people taking the test as a representative of my EnneaType. The two major requirements were that: (1) the participant has to be over 90% sure of his self-typing and (2) EI has to agree with the participant’s self-typing.
Well, if EI just happen to change their minds, they can take my results out of the Five bucket and throw it into the bucket for another EnneaType. It’s okay with me.
Crooner Sexual Five
Cool... can i be part of the experiment?
3w4 sp/sx (sp by a smidge)
enneathing
Posted - 22 Mar 2010 : 05:34:34 AM
quote:Originally posted by Serenity
I think so 4w5 is a high prob for me but I can't say I like it.
lol
enneathing
Posted - 22 Mar 2010 : 05:05:54 AMYes.
Beyond
Posted - 31 May 2008 : 5:53:37 PM I was talking about the difference between them, so I had to describe it like so.
And anyway, I didn't say have...
3-6-1 In the path of disintergration.
Kiss me beneath the milky twilight, somewhere near our broken treehouse.
Beyond
Posted - 31 May 2008 : 5:41:53 PM Your wing would be the same stacking as your core type I suppose?
3-6-1 In the path of disintergration.
Kiss me beneath the milky twilight, somewhere near our broken treehouse.
the_eye
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 5:21:12 PM I don't enjoy neither my own suffering, nor the suffering of others, whatever that means. And I've just decided my grandchildren will be in this triad. At least a quarter of them.
"mich interessiert kein Gleichgewicht/ mir scheint die Sonne ins Gesicht"
Scandia
Posted - 30 May 2008 : 3:36:47 PM Regarding that description, for me it would be a close call between Self-Preservation and Social 3. But given my own strengths as an individual, I recognize myself as an SP 3.
Regarding my 4-wing, I do not like to suffer. I do cry for help. I do get overdramatic. I do plea for attention. But I do not consider what I am doing so about to be either childish or trivial. I am envious and competitive, but not in a hateful way.
ENTJ 3w4 SP/SO/SX SLOEI Inventive
Estranged Protractor
Posted - 11 Mar 2006 : 4:25:15 PM Invicta: I take back what I posited about Lawrence of Arabia in that email a long time ago. I do still think it likely he's a 3w4 though. He had a strong 3 component at any rate. Definitely an SP/SO variant.
Posted - 08 Mar 2006 : 3:09:37 PM Claudio is a 5 soc., going in the direction of in mature days.
pork
Posted - 16 Aug 2004 : 02:36:31 AM Actually Crooner gives me a 2w1 "feeling," but I can't rule out the possibility of evolved Fivedom in his case. I can't rule out much of anything, actually, since I haven't met him in person.
^(oo)^
4w3, SP/SX, INFJ
Hompo
Posted - 16 Aug 2004 : 02:01:03 AM entre: what was your USCF rating?
anon1
Posted - 15 Aug 2004 : 10:01:26 PM umm, entre1... Pork's Type 4. If I didn't know him and had to guess, I'd say Type 1. See Pork, no spelling misakes
4 sx/sp/so INFP SSS/Merc/Dramatic/Self-Confident Style Persona is SSS/SCS
Rich
Posted - 15 Aug 2004 : 7:30:29 PM Hello Bear: Thank you for the 2-3-4 triad subtypes. I really enjoyed the take on the 3 self-pres. Over the years, I have gotten a lot of " you sure don't seem to be a 3! I think that you are a XW-, instead! " Thanks for helping to explain us, its no fun, not to match up people's expectations of 3s..../
Posted - 11 Aug 2004 : 6:13:26 PM I'm glad you're back, pork. I didn't get to read much of your posts in the past because of the timing when both of us were/weren't on the board. I'm with you 100%. I think there's a lot of valuable information and exchange here that's added to my understanding, but there's also a lot of bad stereotyping and assumptions. If I learned only here, I'd be utterly confused.
Dee, don't have time to read that article right now but I'll come back to it.
5w4 sx/sp
pork
Posted - 11 Aug 2004 : 4:20:31 PM Excellent points as usual, Val...
Val: I think most Enneagram authors are likely to have a blind spot in certain areas as well.
Yes, I've occasionally pointed out what I consider to be the "blind spots" of some authors, many of whom exhibit "variant blindness" in particular. Palmer's Four, for instance, is too "Socialized" for me (SO-last). If her books had been my introduction to the E-gram, I might not have become interested. In fact I might have been baffled: "None of these 'types' are like me at all. How flaky." Good thing I found Condon and R&H first, whose Four descriptions were so uncannily accurate for me that my discovery of them was something of a catalystic moment in my life.
That said, would you care to provide more examples of the "blind spots" of some popular E-gram authors?
Val: authors may have a vested interest in selling books, which may further skew their presentation of information.
Compare B&W with Naranjo....
Val: This assumes people can't adapt to reality when they've been presented with hypotheses or theories.
If your concept of an E-type is too narrow, you might have trouble identifying people of that E-type in real life when they don't fit that 2-D stereotype. I recall a story from 9types: a Four attended an E-gram workshop, but she got expelled from the Four panel. Why? Merely because she, a supposed Four, had been married for some 20 years. "That could never happen!" argued the members of the panel. They must have gleaned that bit of wisdom from the social grapevine, because I've never seen anything like that in any E-gram book, not even the sucky ones. You see what I mean.
Val: Are you speaking specifically of Entre and CD in this case?
No, but it was amusing to watch CD drowning in a sea of irrelevant nonsense, courtesy of her eager informants here, when she was trying to figure out her type. When I heard of how little she'd read of the E-gram books, I was floored.
Val: There is the chance that these "numerous quotations" are from people who are mistyped.
Always. They should hire me to fix that problem.
Val: Also keep in mind that these quotes are carefully selected to illustrate certain things, and may not show the entire context.
Aye, the context would be useful, especially to show us that people are not supposed to be walking clichés with B&W's cute checklists taped on their backs. Then maybe the Internet boards wouldn't be full of people insisiting that we are supposed to be like that. The social discussion group here is great - don't get me wrong on that - but the books remain the best primer and foundation. (We can peacefully agree to disagree on that one, if you will.)
Note that using the E-gram books as a "critical foundation" is not the same as being a stodgy, book-bound literalist averse to new ideas. It is the nature of a foundation to support new things, but all the same, the foundation should be strong.
Val: Pork, you're such a snob!
You should see me on the Internet Movie Database boards. "That old foreign flick put you to sleep? I hope you had a good wet dream to make up for it. That would at least distinguish you from the rock on my windowsill." I'm a nightmare, dahling.
^(oo)^
4w3, SP/SX, INFJ
Val
Posted - 11 Aug 2004 : 2:03:33 PM Pork, you're such a snob!
But I mean that in the most affectionate way possible.
quote:Originally posted by pork Having read so much of what's written here, I can safely say I'm lucky I found the books first. And the books-life combo is more filling than the Internet-life combo.
Why would you say the books have an advantage over the Internet? I've seen an impressive sampling of information on the types online.
quote: One advantage of the books is that most E-gram authors have met many examples of every E-type. Unfortunately, most of your "professors" here have an E-gram "blind spot" in a certain area, so you'd better have read some good E-gram books before you take the EIDB "class."
I think most Enneagram authors are likely to have a blind spot in certain areas as well. And not to play CZ too much ... but authors may have a vested interest in selling books, which may further skew their presentation of information. What makes a "good" E-gram book is entirely subjective, perhaps even arbitrary. It might be best, in fact, to do the EIDB first and absorb different theories from fresh observers before reading the E-gram "canon" (if such a thing exists). What I appreciate about the "professors" here is being able to see what they see (look at the same data) and decide if my their conclusions logically (or intuitively) follow. Not able to do that w/ Riso's work. Don't know what data points he started with.
quote: If you understand only the oft-dubious, watered-down discussion-board version of Twoness, for instance, you not only compromise your understanding of Four, Eight, Three, One, the Feeling Triad as a whole, etc., but you might have trouble identifying real Twos when you do meet them, because you've sucked up too much wild myth about them from people who have felt free to speculate generously about Twoness despite having as much of a "blind spot" in that area as you do.
This assumes people can't adapt to reality when they've been presented with hypotheses or theories. A silly assumption, IMO. I had a lot of speculations about what Alaska was like. Then I experienced Anchorage and Fairbanks. Twice. My ideas changed and became informed. Not sure what harm this board is causing due to "disinformation". At least my idea of the harm seems to be different from yours.
quote: and the content of the better books is based more on firsthand observation than on improvised conjecture.
I think many here have firsthand observations as well. I initially didn't believe Jase when he said his variant stacking descriptions wrote themselves once you saw people in action. Lo and behold, after I started watching people, I discovered he was absolutely right. I could list others whose opinions I believe are informed by experience. Are you speaking specifically of Entre and CD in this case?
quote: Recall the numerous quotations from students describing the problems and experiences of their E-types in Palmer's The Enneagram and R&H's Wisdom, and the transcripts of therapy sessions with people of different E-types in Naranjo's Transformation Through Insight.
There is the chance that these "numerous quotations" are from people who are mistyped. I have heard opinions to that effect directly from these authors in regards to other authors' works. Also keep in mind that these quotes are carefully selected to illustrate certain things, and may not show the entire context.
6w5 so/sp INfP "It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without your help." ~Unknown
anon1
Posted - 11 Aug 2004 : 1:22:57 PM
quote:Originally posted by bear
Dee: Well, I'm wondering now on his take of 4 and it's accuracy as per above. [quote]I'm confused by this. What I said was that all the 4s I interacted with at the conference felt that Naranjo's descriptions were completely on target, so your comment doesn't make sense to me - I'm not sure what you mean.
Hi Bear, Have you read this article? It's what I'm referring to. I wish I could highlight some of the points but I think you will be able to read what I'm referring to. Why would he do this?? I think it's like I've been saying.
4 sx/sp/so INFP SSS/Merc/Dramatic/Self-Confident Style Persona is SSS/SCS
pork
Posted - 11 Aug 2004 : 10:32:04 AMbear: you can't get it only from the books . . .
I'm with you there, too. If I hadn't applied the information in the books to real-life situations, I wouldn't really understand the system. Participating in online E-gram forums (for eight years and counting) has also helped, but the Internet E-gram community, for me, has been little more than the icing on the cake. Having read so much of what's written here, I can safely say I'm lucky I found the books first. And the books-life combo is more filling than the Internet-life combo.
One advantage of the books is that most E-gram authors have met many examples of every E-type. Unfortunately, most of your "professors" here have an E-gram "blind spot" in a certain area, so you'd better have read some good E-gram books before you take the EIDB "class."
If you understand only the oft-dubious, watered-down discussion-board version of Twoness, for instance, you not only compromise your understanding of Four, Eight, Three, One, the Feeling Triad as a whole, etc., but you might have trouble identifying real Twos when you do meet them, because you've sucked up too much wild myth about them from people who have felt free to speculate generously about Twoness despite having as much of a "blind spot" in that area as you do.
I'll maintain that the books have been a critical foundation for me; they go more in-depth than 99 percent of what you read here, and the content of the better books is based more on firsthand observation than on improvised conjecture. Recall the numerous quotations from students describing the problems and experiences of their E-types in Palmer's The Enneagram and R&H's Wisdom, and the transcripts of therapy sessions with people of different E-types in Naranjo's Transformation Through Insight.
Some people who lack that foundation, and who got all their info from EIDB 101, seem confused in a sea of red herrings and glib oversimplifications. It's ironic: though the Internet is a living, breathing educational venue, the books often present personality types in a more informed light, a more human light.
When reading the contributions of these unversed participants to the discussion board, I marvel at their articulateness and perceptivity - these people are certainly clever - but occasionally they bewilder me by brandishing a wooden nickel, or a deed to the Brooklyn Bridge, or a food processor with the words "cold-fusion generator" scribbled on it, or a wacky theory, and I have to wonder, "Who sold them that?"
So there's my (quasi-) Five-Wing dabbling for the day.
^(oo)^
4w3, SP/SX, INFJ
Val
Posted - 11 Aug 2004 : 09:36:27 AM Naranjo is arguably a 5.
6w5 so/sp INfP "It is far more impressive when others discover your good qualities without your help." ~Unknown
jase
Posted - 11 Aug 2004 : 09:13:32 AM
quote:I only wish they weren't justified in this discussion, except people say things like "totems aren't people."
Yeah. Those people, what do they know. They're not smart like we are.
bear
Posted - 11 Aug 2004 : 08:52:42 AM Dee: Well, I'm wondering now on his take of 4 and it's accuracy as per above. I'm confused by this. What I said was that all the 4s I interacted with at the conference felt that Naranjo's descriptions were completely on target, so your comment doesn't make sense to me - I'm not sure what you mean.
Totem - my take on it is that SO5 wants to be the totem - the one with the status, the one whom others look to for knowledge and advice.
I'm with you pork. There's an awful lot of gun-jumping that goes on here, the focus being more towards figuring out or challenging someone's type more than what we can do with that information to help ourselves/each other. I personally believe that you can't get it only from the books - the more sources and ways that you learn with it, the clearer and more truthful it becomes, and most important of all - useful.
Thanks all for appreciating my effort to bring you the Naranjo notes.
The Enneagram Institute is a Service Mark of Enneagram Personality Types, Inc.
All Images, Content and Layout Copyright The Enneagram Institute 1998-2013.
At least a quarter of them.
in mature days.
/
