[Type 5] Emotional 5s

[hhp]

If you take glutony of 7s and turn it back, you will have 5s avaricity ( avaricia is in spanish but i dont know if im right)
It's like seeing the world as too big, too strong, too intimidating, and they consider so small. The difference between 6s is that they naturaly choose to recluse, they dont actually try to conect with the world ( with Sp last and Sx first this may be less visible, but they really feel it) it's an existensial fear to keep the little energy that they think to have to themselves.
This is true even for a Sx/So 5. Doesn't merely have to do wwith insctint is more than that.

This is interesting. I had always considered 5's avarice and 5's emptiness as two separate things. I see "avarice" rather as a consequence of the obsession with ratonality and logic: "I don't want to spend money on that, because it's unneccessary" "I don't want to waste words because I've said everything I needed to say", etc...While other people don't mind wasting resources for the fun of it, 5's will do it only if there's a logical reason for doing it. At least that's how I see it.

Emptiness for me means rather the disconnection from the inner-self. You keep your head busy with dry theoretical problems and forget about yourself.
In this way, 2's, 3's, 5's and 7's, all of them can become empty if they're not careful, because of different reasons.

 

[jixmixfix]

Hi people

I want to know how 5s deal with emotions, i want some personal experience of the 5s here... I used to think that i was a Sx4, but now i know that i am a Sx 5...

In my experience it was difficult, i dealed and showed my emotions through my thoughts and my mind. It's like a blind game with my feelings, i dont know what they mean, but i still get near to my emotions and touch/analyze them.
I dont want to sound elitist or wanabe unique, but im , like a counter 5 (reactive, emotional, temperamental, more artistic, still want engagment) at least the general description of the E5 dont describe me too much.
And im not as absent minded, ethereal or rational than some 5s that i knew in real life. But i see the external world as too... i dont know, dangerous isn't the word, is a more agoraphobic feeling.
I dont want to get involved with the world, but at the same time i cant stand long periods of lack of emotions or engagment... As a Sx first this statement makes a lot of sense.
I know that i am a 5, it was much more difficult to admit//make sure of this, and the basic fear of the 5s made me crash/crack myself a bit... and took me quiet a long time to admit it to myself.

I want some 5s here talking a little bit more about emotions, the fear of emptiness and some things like that.

Chao

We all just masturbate by ourselves. The end.

 

[Richardsen]

This is interesting. I had always considered 5's avarice and 5's emptiness as two separate things. I see "avarice" rather as a consequence of the obsession with ratonality and logic: "I don't want to spend money on that, because it's unneccessary" "I don't want to waste words because I've said everything I needed to say", etc...While other people don't mind wasting resources for the fun of it, 5's will do it only if there's a logical reason for doing it. At least that's how I see it.

Emptiness for me means rather the disconnection from the inner-self. You keep your head busy with dry theoretical problems and forget about yourself.
In this way, 2's, 3's, 5's and 7's, all of them can become empty if they're not careful, because of different reasons.

Once i read that the "holy idea" of 5s was "the return to the maternal uterus". i obviously if you take it literaly this have no sense, but ilustrates perfectly what i tried to say
I see avarice as the cause of rationalization btw.

 

[Tiger Owl]

Once i read that the "holy idea" of 5s was "the return to the maternal uterus".

It is the journey, not the destination that I find most arousing.

 

[garbage]

Hi, I'm posting under the assumption that I'm a 5. Whatever; I'll roll with it.

Descriptions of 5 also talk about how sensitive they really can be; some assert that the wall they place between themselves and the outside world is a defense mechanism because, otherwise, the dam is broken and the 5 can't handle the influx because of their sensitivity.

I've dealt with emotions simply by embracing that 'illogical' side. One way I do so is to realize that emotions are signals--they're just more information. If I don't factor them in, then I don't have the whole picture or a complete understanding of the world and of my own cognition.

That's one rational way I deal with them. I have tons of irrational ones, such as embracing joy that comes from a sense of purpose and understanding, for instance.

I'll probably never be one to "fly off the handle," though; I don't believe in subjecting others to intense negativity, especially directed at them.

 

[Mal12345]

Gotta keep in mind that Thinking/Feeling in MBTI terms is about morals and judgements rather than emotions.

Sorry, but no. In Jungian terms emotions are left out of the equation. This theory was written by an unemotional INTJ.

What you are seeing these days is the Jungianizing of the original MBTI that was created by an INFP.

Here are the General Characteristics of the Feeler found in an MBTI book called LifeTypes (1989).

"I am more likely to act like a Feeler and:

Have harmony as my objective.
Decide more on my heart.
Prefer to agree with others' findings, believing people are worth listening to.
See my encounters with people as friendly and important in themselves.
Notice when people need support.
Choose tactfulness over truthfulness.
Overlook people's negative points, stressing areas of agreement.
Focus my attention on personal motives.
Deal with people compassionately, as needed.
Expect the world to recognize individual differences."

 

[Mal12345]

Hi, I'm posting under the assumption that I'm a 5. Whatever; I'll roll with it.

Descriptions of 5 also talk about how sensitive they really can be; some assert that the wall they place between themselves and the outside world is a defense mechanism because, otherwise, the dam is broken and the 5 can't handle the influx because of their sensitivity.

I've dealt with emotions simply by embracing that 'illogical' side. One way I do so is to realize that emotions are signals--they're just more information. If I don't factor them in, then I don't have the whole picture or a complete understanding of the world and of my own cognition.

That's one rational way I deal with them. I have tons of irrational ones, such as embracing joy that comes from a sense of purpose and understanding, for instance.

I'll probably never be one to "fly off the handle," though; I don't believe in subjecting others to intense negativity, especially directed at them.

Fives are so thin-skinned that they are forced by reality into burying their vulnerable emotional side.

 

[Tiger Owl]

Fives are so thin-skinned that they are forced by reality into burying their vulnerable emotional side.

What is this drivel.

 

[Mal12345]

What is this drivel.

Probably you drooling on yourself again.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's keep it that way. End of discussion.

 

[Tiger Owl]

Probably you drooling on yourself again.

You have your opinion, I have mine. Let's keep it that way. End of discussion.

Well, I guess some Fives really do have thin-skin. You are entitled to your opinion but when your opinion is a blanket generalization it loses all meaning and value.
Your signature is hilarious by the way (I should have read it before responding. Would have saved some time).

 

[garbage]

well, there is this thing:

Five children adapted to feeling rejected or to feeling smothered by skirting intimacy, by hiding themselves from the sight of others and observing others from safe distances. Five children became calm, cool observers who retreated from life and felt safer dealing with mental concepts than messy feelings.

and this thing:

Fives are sensitive; they don't feel adequately defended against the world. To compensate for their sensitivity, Fives sometimes adopt an attitude of careless indifference or intellectual arrogance, which has the unfortunate consequence of creating distance between themselves and others. Trying to bridge the distance can be difficult for Fives, as they are seldom comfortable with their social skills, but when they do manage it, they are often devoted friends and life long companions.

Fives are usually somewhat restrained when it comes to emotional expression, but they often have stronger feelings than they let on.

etc.

 

[Mal12345]

Well, I guess some Fives really do have thin-skin. You are entitled to your opinion but when your opinion is a blanket generalization it loses all meaning and value.
Your signature is hilarious by the way (I should have read it before responding. Would have saved some time).

Complimenting my sig, that's a first. It's a rather big signature, but not a LARGE signature which I hate, along with wordy signatures that go on and on.

I wonder, who here hasn't heard of Boundaries theory, which discusses issues of personal boundaries by boiling it down to the issue of being thin-skinned versus thick-skinned (like my type 8 boss)? I doubt if anybody has, and in personality theory this is an important distinction to be made. For example, you could call my boss every name in the book and it would just roll right off of him. Other types would sooner or later break down and start crying. A thick skin could probably be developed. If I went into boxing like Mickey Rourke I'm sure I would develop a thicker skin.

Knowing me, I always relate everything back to typology.

 

[Mal12345]

well, there is this thing:

Yes, there is, but I can't relate even to the first paragraph: "Many Five children grew up in a family where personal boundaries barely existed or where one or both caregivers consistently overstepped the child's physical, emotional, or psychic boundaries. Their mother, or primary caregiver, may have been possessive, controlling, or smothering. As quiet, private souls, Five children experienced this behavior as an intrusion and guarded themselves against it by retreating into the safe, private world of their imagination."

I am glad however that you mentioned boundaries, although it is not the Boundaries theory I referred to above.

My opinion on that paragraph is that, for very sensitive children, it would literally be necessary to protect them from every possible slight and mishap. I agree that what it describes is an issue for them, but it really doesn't require that much over-stepping of boundaries given that those boundaries are so thin to begin with.

 

[Mal12345]

I relate more to the second paragraph.

Amazingly, having read further into the descriptions, the author mentioned those Enneagram authors of yore Hurley and Dobson (who changed his name to Donson before he died).

 

[Mal12345]

Yes, there is, but I can't relate even to the first paragraph: "Many Five children grew up in a family where personal boundaries barely existed or where one or both caregivers consistently overstepped the child's physical, emotional, or psychic boundaries. Their mother, or primary caregiver, may have been possessive, controlling, or smothering. As quiet, private souls, Five children experienced this behavior as an intrusion and guarded themselves against it by retreating into the safe, private world of their imagination."

That is just an interpretation of someone's childhood. My brother, who is not a type 5, talks about his childhood in quite different terms. All he talks about is warring with this older sisters and parents who didn't know what they were doing. He had his influences and I had mine. I would probably experience his childhood as having my boundaries stepped on.

 

[Seymour]

Here's my own personal attachment/object-relations-ish/psychodynamic take on what happens. If one's parents are capable of matching and reflecting one's emotional state, one learns (partially through example) healthy ways of relating and dealing with emotions (the process of attachment):

"Infants become attached to adults who are sensitive and responsive in social interactions with them, and who remain as consistent caregivers for some months during the period from about six months to two years of age."

One's parents may be unable to be responsive through no fault of their own. For example, a depressed parent, a parent who is cut off from his or her own emotions, or a parent who is otherwise unable to regulate his or her own emotions.

Regardless, if one's parents fail to be responsive to one's emotional state, then one is likely to develop an insecure attachment style. One may experience the presence and emotions of one's parents as overwhelming or disruptively impinging, which may lead to one of the avoidant attachment styles. One comes to fear the annihilation of the self, and sees the external world (and people) as overwhelming and draining.

In psychoanalytic terms, most enneagram 5s (and even some type 4s) would fall under the schizoid/avoidant personality type, and uses defenses like intellectualization, rationalization, fantasy and isolation.

From the Schizoid Personality Disorder wikipedia page:

According to Gunderson, people with SPD "feel lost" without the people they are normally around because they require a sense of security and stability. However, when the patient's personal space is violated, they feel suffocated and feel the need to free themselves and be independent. People who have SPD tend to be happiest when they are in a relationship in which the partner places few emotional or intimate demands on them; it is not people as such that they want to avoid, but both negative and positive emotions, emotional intimacy, and self disclosure.

This means that it is possible for schizoid individuals to form relationships with others based on intellectual, physical, familial, occupational, or recreational activities as long as these modes of relating do not require or force the need for emotional intimacy, which the affected individual will reject.

Donald Winnicott summarizes the schizoid need to modulate emotional interaction with others with his comment that schizoid individuals "prefer to make relationships on their own terms and not in terms of the impulses of other people," and failing to attain that, they prefer isolation.

So, for emotional 5s, I think part of the way they experience the outward world as draining is because of their own emotional hypersensitivity. Consequently, they turn to intellectualization and logical understanding as a means to make emotions (both their own and others) understandable and predictable... and therefore safer and more manageable... at least in theory.

 

[VagrantFarce]

That is just an interpretation of someone's childhood. My brother, who is not a type 5, talks about his childhood in quite different terms. All he talks about is warring with this older sisters and parents who didn't know what they were doing. He had his influences and I had mine. I would probably experience his childhood as having my boundaries stepped on.

Yes, I don't really think that these childhood experiences mean much, since they're coloured by your own natural temperament anyway. So a 5 might describe a childhood as invasive and overwhelming, but an 8 might describe the same childhood as warring and battle-stricken. It just goes to show how much we colour our own world, and that we can choose to colour it another way at any given moment, if we choose to.

So, for emotional 5s, I think part of the way they experience the outward world as draining is because of their own emotional hypersensitivity. Consequently, they turn to intellectualization and logical understanding as a means to make emotions (both their own and others) understandable and predictable... and therefore safer and more manageable... at least in theory.

I can only speak for myself, but to me it's a fear of emotional coercion - people are kept at arm's length, and attempts at being engaged on an emotional level are resisted. It's an unspoken arrangement: "You keep to yourself, and I'll keep to myself - deal?" That way I only have myself to worry about. Not an admirable way to live your life, admittedly.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

I probably qualify as an "emotional 5" or a "Feeler Five". I have two ways of dealing with emotions and both involve a sort of observation simultaneously with experience. During adolescence I learned to respond to emotions by creating two separate tracks in my mind simultaneously. The one track was subject to emotional immersion and the second was distant and analytical. It would start by focusing on something neutral like a pattern and then it could observe the emotion while it was also being experienced. This produced a strong ability to function while experiencing an emotion.

Because of the way emotions can intrude into the ability to function or reason, I have also been fascinated with how they work and so have obsessively analyzed the emotions and perceptions of myself and everyone I encounter. They resist reason and so they become especially fascinating to me. I find myself easily confused and disoriented by other people's emotional responses, but then tend to take the time to analyze the situation until I can come up with a few hypothesis about what could be the cause and effect. I tend to be hyper-analytical of subjective information and so am especially slow to form conclusions, but prefer multiple hypothesis that gradually evolve into the greater degrees of certainty.

I have very few close relationships and don't form absolute conclusions even about who my partner, my mother, my brother, or sister may be. Each person is like a river flowing, evolving, a dynamic system that can be observed and loved, but never fully known. For my non-close relationships I like to focus in on one individual at a time and be effective in my interaction with them. For me effective means perceiving them as accurately as I can and interacting in a way that generates peace and increases the individual strength of that person and of myself.

 

[Asterion]

Sorry, but no. In Jungian terms emotions are left out of the equation. This theory was written by an unemotional INTJ.

What you are seeing these days is the Jungianizing of the original MBTI that was created by an INFP.

Here are the General Characteristics of the Feeler found in an MBTI book called LifeTypes (1989).

"I am more likely to act like a Feeler and:

Have harmony as my objective.
Decide more on my heart.
Prefer to agree with others' findings, believing people are worth listening to.
See my encounters with people as friendly and important in themselves.
Notice when people need support.
Choose tactfulness over truthfulness.
Overlook people's negative points, stressing areas of agreement.
Focus my attention on personal motives.
Deal with people compassionately, as needed.
Expect the world to recognize individual differences."

You better get out the thinker one, or I might have to change my type to INFP :S

 

[Mal12345]

You better get out the thinker one, or I might have to change my type to INFP :S

I am more likely to act like a Thinker and:

Have truth as my objective.
Decide more with my head.
Prefer on principle to question others' findings, believing their findings may be inaccurate.
See my encounters with people as having a purpose.
Notice ineffective reasoning.
Choose truthfulness over tactfulness.
Critique and point out the negatives, overlooking the positives.
Focus my attention on universal principles.
Deal with people firmly, as required.
Expect the world to run on logical principles.