[Type 8] Can Enneagram 8's really have a deep, loving union with someone?

[violet_crown]

That may be true - unless the 5 is lucky (or unlucky) enough to be chased really hard by a dedicated 8.

My experiences with 5s have rarely been been good. With few exceptions, most just seem impossibly prissy, self-righteous and arrogant, and more inclined to shit on you than look at you. It's just this long, sad story of unrequited respect on my part, until I just say, "Fuck this person," and go on with it. I'd take the most counterphobic of 6s out there over the average 5 any day.

I think that 5s need people who really get them, or dont seem to take them too seriously. Of the gut triad I could see 1s being compatible if there was some shared principles between them. For whatever reason, I could see any member of the heart triad working with a 5. As for the head triad, I'd say other 5s, pass over 6, and definitely include 7s.

 

[violet_crown]

As a closer-to-healthy 8 now, I can tell you that I still love a good chase, but I like the enneagram-5 variety: I want loyalty and trust, in a partner, but the never-ending chase, with a 5, can come in the form of a mind that I can never quite understand; a vast array of thoughts and ideas that I can never keep up with. This is still a chase, but also provides grounds for a real relationship and lasting intimacy. Also, getting someone "into their body" who is normally not quite "in their body" gives me a thrill, especially because 5s have that 8 soul-child lust that is just DYING for a chance to come out, and once you unleash that inner animal, it's highly likely that the 5 will be wild in bed. But they're still a 5, so they'd still be secretive and less likely than some other archetypes to "sleep around." On top of that, "trust" between these two types is likely because both like to "say it how it is" and don't tend to "beat around the bush." Therefore, I vote healthy 5 as an excellent match for a healthy 8.

Charming ideas and perhaps true if you're ENFP 8, but for the rest of us schmucks is prolly a thought unlikely to advance from that realm.

 

[Entropic]

My experiences with 5s have rarely been been good. With few exceptions, most just seem impossibly prissy, self-righteous and arrogant, and more inclined to shit on you than look at you. It's just this long, sad story of unrequited respect on my part, until I just say, "Fuck this person," and go on with it. I'd take the most counterphobic of 6s out there over the average 5 any day.

I think that 5s need people who really get them, or dont seem to take them too seriously. Of the gut triad I could see 1s being compatible if there was some shared principles between them. For whatever reason, I could see any member of the heart triad working with a 5. As for the head triad, I'd say other 5s, pass over 6, and definitely include 7s.

I definitely prefer 8s over 1s personally if I would choose, and 4s over the other image triad types. Also, wouldn't the rest of the type matter? Thinking specially in terms of socionics here.

 

[violet_crown]

I definitely prefer 8s over 1s personally if I would choose, and 4s over the other image triad types.

While you'll have no argument from me on either of those preferences, I question how widely they are held amongst others of your enneagram type.

Also, wouldn't the rest of the type matter? Thinking specially in terms of socionics here.

Perhaps. Given there's theoretically concurrence across typological systems, I wouldn't suppose any one to pose that great of a contradiction. Oddball combinations might prove to be an exception, but if your dream girl's an ESTj 8 she ain't one of them.

 

[Entropic]

While you'll have no argument from me on either of those preferences, I question how widely they are held amongst others of your enneagram type.

I never said it has to be universal among others of my type. I was just stating my personal preferences.

Perhaps. Given there's theoretically concurrence across typological systems, I wouldn't suppose any one to pose that great of a contradiction. Oddball combinations might prove to be an exception, but if your dream girl's an ESTj 8 she ain't one of them.

It was part a joke if that's what you mean. And I am an oddball combination if you go by type descriptions.

 

[violet_crown]

It was part a joke if that's what you mean. And I am an oddball combination if you go by type descriptions.

INP 5w4 is unusual?

 

[Entropic]

INP 5w4 is unusual?

EII? Yes. I can't even convince some socionics people that I am not an a logical type and if they I do they become obssessed with the idea that I'm an IEI because IEIs is according to the person who insists that I am one, more prone to be logical. Whatevz.

Also, I have arrived at the cynical belief that most INxPs who type as 5s are not 5s and that 5 is for some reason, a very easy type to mistype as, especially if an introverted MBTI type with an intellectual interest.

 

[violet_crown]

EII? Yes. I can't even convince some socionics people that I am not an a logical type and if they I do they become obssessed with the idea that I'm an IEI because IEIs is according to the person who insists that I am one, more prone to be logical. Whatevz.

Well, for what it's worth, I believe you, because...you know...

 

[Entropic]

Well, for what it's worth, I believe you, because...you know...

I never asked you to agree with socionics as a theory.

 

[violet_crown]

I never asked you to agree with socionics as a theory.

You did implicitly by bringing it into a conversation of type. Anyways, I like you, and feel this convo beginning to devolve. Best of luck with your search for a nice ESTj girl. Maybe [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] can give you some pointers.

 

[EJCC]

You did implicitly by bringing it into a conversation of type. Anyways, I like you, and feel this convo beginning to devolve. Best of luck with your search for a nice ESTj girl. Maybe [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] can give you some pointers.

I'd love to help as an ESTJ, but I know absolutely nothing about Socionics so I don't know if I'd be an ESTj. Aren't ESTJs generally ESTp?

 

[violet_crown]

I'd love to help as an ESTJ, but I know absolutely nothing about Socionics so I don't know if I'd be an ESTj. Aren't ESTJs generally ESTp?

Oh.

Well, I'm pretty sure that I'm LIE, which is ENTj. I thought that most J's stay J, but some P's become J. And then there are shapes. Lots and lots of shapes.

 

[EJCC]

Oh.

Well, I'm pretty sure that I'm LIE, which is ENTj. I thought that most J's stay J, but some P's become J. And then there are shapes. Lots and lots of shapes.

I'm sure you're right about j/p. Like I said, I know nothing about it. Whereas, you actually know enough about the system to have an educated opinion on it.

How did you type yourself? Tests? Descriptions?

 

[Entropic]

I'd love to help as an ESTJ, but I know absolutely nothing about Socionics so I don't know if I'd be an ESTj. Aren't ESTJs generally ESTp?

No, translation between systems is very hit and miss.

 

[violet_crown]

Whereas, you actually know enough about the system to have an educated opinion on it.

Hardly. Although it seems to be coming into vogue as of late, my knowledge of it remains pretty cursory, because I still believe that it's a flawed system in many respects. Not exactly the most user-friendly, for instance.

How did you type yourself? Tests? Descriptions?

Simple minded as it sounds. I looked at the ENTj description, was satisfied with what I saw, and planted my flag.

Other people have agreed with the typing, but honestly who knows? I could be a turnip as far as anyone can tell.

 

[EJCC]

Simple minded as it sounds. I looked at the ENTj description, was satisfied with what I saw, and planted my flag.

Sweet! That's what I just did.

Mostly, I looked at the description with an emphasis on how it described the functions, and saw that
1) Most of the functional elements seemed pretty much the same (e.g. Te is still all about Getting Shit Done and having a really good end product); and
2) There were some cool little insights that I found true of myself, that haven't been in any ESTJ descriptions I've read so far.
Examples of those:

LSEs try hard to be people of their word. They remember agreements made and do not take promises lightly. They judge other people by how conscientious and reliable they are in interaction and cooperation. LSEs expect people to say what they mean and do what they say. As their innate understanding of personality is not very fine-tuned, they judge others' character more by their objective deeds than by their attitudes and motives, which can be hard for the LSE to discern.
...
Aesthetic appeal is very important to LSEs. This applies to all aspects of their lives — clothes, work tools, living environment, etc. Most LSEs have an orderly home and work area and select their clothes carefully. They have a relatively easy time matching clothes, colors, textures, and other aesthetic properties. Many LSEs are conneisseurs of good food, good clothes, household products, and hygienic products.

LSEs typically have a strong caretaking streak; they enjoy having others to care or provide for who are dependent on their assistance.
...
LSEs' emotional expression tends to be either subdued and understated or unusually sudden and obvious. (Note: this is why I have such a hard time choosing between Calm and Limbic in the Big 5)
...
LSEs tend to have an unchanging habit of either being chronically late or chronically early. They rarely know or think about how long things will take, and their estimates are often way off. They are often surprised by the amount of time that has passed between events, and wonder where the time has gone. (Note: My INTJ friend constantly makes fun of me for this. Especially because my inaccurate predictions often end with "Whatever! It'll be fine!") LSEs tend to want everything done as well as possible and to the highest possible quality, often failing to consider the amount of time necessary to do the job in such a way.

When making plans for the future, LSEs typically do not leave room for unforeseen obstacles. These obstacles frustrate the LSE because they destroy the established rhythm of operations and require switching gears.

So! My point is: I guess I'm an LSE/ESTj, so that must mean I can contribute to the topic? Unless that was entirely a joke; I recognize that it was at least halfway a joke. Can I be of any more use here?

 

[Entropic]

Sweet! That's what I just did.

Mostly, I looked at the description with an emphasis on how it described the functions, and saw that
1) Most of the functional elements seemed pretty much the same (e.g. Te is still all about Getting Shit Done and having a really good end product); and
2) There were some cool little insights that I found true of myself, that haven't been in any ESTJ descriptions I've read so far.
Examples of those:


So! My point is: I guess I'm an LSE/ESTj, so that must mean I can contribute to the topic? Unless that was entirely a joke; I recognize that it was at least halfway a joke. Can I be of any more use here?

I approach cross-comparing type between the systems this way: if your MBTI type is the same as your Jungian type, that is, your thinking correlates to dominant Te with auxiliary sensation according to how Jung defined Te and sensation (can't stress this enough, a lot of misunderstandings typing between the system occurs because people don't understand the difference between how functions appear in the MBTI and how Jung described functions), then you are also that type in socionics. The problem is that a vast majority of the people who type in the MBTI don't approach it using the functions or they do but they approach it superficially so Ne is supposed to be this random fun function so if I'm fun and random it means I utilize Ne.

That's not really how it works outside of MBTI-land anyway. If you relate to those points (also, poor time-management skills are signs of devaluig Ni) and how the functions appear not just in the ego but across the entire system, then you are most likely properly typed in socionics.

[MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION], I could see how LIE could fit but I could also see an argument for Se ego base. I agree that you are an Se-Ni valuing type.

/successful socionics thread hijack.

 

[EJCC]

I approach cross-comparing type between the systems this way: if your MBTI type is the same as your Jungian type, that is, your thinking correlates to dominant Te with auxiliary sensation according to how Jung defined Te and sensation (can't stress this enough, a lot of misunderstandings typing between the system occurs because people don't understand the difference between how functions appear in the MBTI and how Jung described functions), then you are also that type in socionics. The problem is that a vast majority of the people who type in the MBTI don't approach it using the functions or they do but they approach it superficially so Ne is supposed to be this random fun function so if I'm fun and random it means I utilize Ne.

I'd like to think that I understand the functions as I've seen them described in MBTI function descriptions -- with the exception of Se, which I'm still a little fuzzy on -- but I haven't read the actual Jung material on it. Maybe I should get on that at some point.

(also, poor time-management skills are signs of devaluig Ni)

You're right that it's bad Ni, but to be fair, I wouldn't call it poor time management -- I'd call it poor strategic planning. I'm not a strategist at all. True to ESTJ form, I'm better at taking an existing timeline and filling it in with smaller steps, than I am at making my own timeline. If I know the deadline for a task, and/or roughly how long it'll take*, then it's no problem at all.

*It helps if I've done it before. Si at work!

 

[Entropic]

I'd like to think that I understand the functions as I've seen them described in MBTI function descriptions -- with the exception of Se, which I'm still a little fuzzy on -- but I haven't read the actual Jung material on it. Maybe I should get on that at some point.

I actually haven't either part because trying to read Jung gives me a headache. I just decided at some point that the MBTI descriptions were bad.

You're right that it's bad Ni, but to be fair, I wouldn't call it poor time management -- I'd call it poor strategic planning. I'm not a strategist at all. True to ESTJ form, I'm better at taking an existing timeline and filling it in with smaller steps, than I am at making my own timeline. If I know the deadline for a task, and/or roughly how long it'll take*, then it's no problem at all.

*It helps if I've done it before. Si at work!

LOL poor strategy planning then.

 

[violet_crown]

So! My point is: I guess I'm an LSE/ESTj, so that must mean I can contribute to the topic? Unless that was entirely a joke; I recognize that it was at least halfway a joke. Can I be of any more use here?

I'm starting to lose track at this point, tbh. I think the point was pointers on the wooing of the ESTj/J female.

[MENTION=7254]Wind-Up Rex[/MENTION], I could see how LIE could fit but I could also see an argument for Se ego base. I agree that you are an Se-Ni valuing type.

/successful socionics thread hijack.

Se ego base? What makes you say that? And which types does that point to?