[Type 4] The difference between 4's

[brainheart]

double post

 

[Amargith]

I'm sorry, I've read this sentence at least twenty times and I have no idea what you're saying.

What I meant was: sp goals are mostly solitary, and they therefore allow oneself to stay raw and true to oneself as objects tend not to talk back about how you re behaving. Whereas navigating the social realm does require you to be able to navigate other people who are very different from you and have the same rights as you do to exist in that society, meaning that curbing yourself a bit - as well as using some walls to protect yourself against their emotional/mental waste - is to be expected in order to make things go smoothly.

Living beings require a different approach than objects, and in some ways they are more dangerous than objects as well, so it pays to take precautions.

 

[brainheart]

What I meant was: sp goals are mostly solitary, and they therefore allow oneself to stay raw and true to oneself as objects tend not to talk back about how you re behaving. Whereas navigating the social realm does require you to be able to navigate other people who are very different from you and have the same rights as you do to exist in that society, meaning that curbing yourself a bit - as well as using some walls to protect yourself against their emotional/mental waste - is to be expected in order to make things go smoothly.

Living beings require a different approach than objects, and in some ways they are more dangerous than objects as well, so it pays to take precautions.

That makes sense. It could be why my mom says she thinks I'm more cat than person sometimes. I think you talk about social in a way that only a social second would, though. I think social fours typically are more like deer in headlights when it comes to navigating society.


Another tangent:

I listened to Naranjo again and it seems like the best tactic when listening to him is to pay attention to the motivations.

Sexual: I need to fulfill my desires, no matter what- even if it makes you suffer.

Social: I need to suffer. (I think social fours over identify with their suffering, kind of this 'who would I be if I wasn't suffering?' Maybe in this way they are the most four-ish four? It seems to me that all fours identify with suffering, but maybe with the social it's an extreme version of this?)

Self pres: I need to endure by denying my suffering.

So combining those makes for some interesting mash-ups, no?

 

[Azure Flame]

4's inflate themselves so they can feel special, and its actually healthy for them if you call them out on their shit and find ways to show them how incredible they are for being normal.

In my experience:

INFJ 4 = "Look at how beautiful and Powerful I am!"
ENFJ 4 = "look at how smart and prestigious I am!"
INFP 4 = "Look at how pathetic I am"
ISFP 4 = "My hometown is shittier than your hometown!"
ENFP 4 = "su su summertime, summertime sadness"
ISTP 4 = "Look how hardcore and badass I am!"
ESFJ 4 = Idunno... rihanna?

 

[Standuble]

4's inflate themselves so they can feel special, and its actually healthy for them if you call them out on their shit and find ways to show them how incredible they are for being normal.

In my experience:

INFJ 4 = "Look at how beautiful and Powerful I am!"
ENFJ 4 = "look at how smart and prestigious I am!"
INFP 4 = "Look at how pathetic I am"
ISFP 4 = "My hometown is shittier than your hometown!"
ENFP 4 = "su su summertime, summertime sadness"
ISTP 4 = "Look how hardcore and badass I am!"
ESFJ 4 = Idunno... rihanna?

My conjecture states that the ISTP and ESFJ's were not four. The ESFJ was probably a mistyped two and the ISTP a six or a nine. Being a four is being internally focused, emotional, being removed from reality and delusional/irrational in a way which spices up the broth.

P.S. There is nothing incredible about being normal (unless you were to argue there is no normal and that by becoming "normal" you have achieved an incredible feat.)

 

[OrangeAppled]

That makes sense. It could be why my mom says she thinks I'm more cat than person sometimes. I think you talk about social in a way that only a social second would, though. I think social fours typically are more like deer in headlights when it comes to navigating society.


Another tangent:

I listened to Naranjo again and it seems like the best tactic when listening to him is to pay attention to the motivations.

Sexual: I need to fulfill my desires, no matter what- even if it makes you suffer.

Social: I need to suffer. (I think social fours over identify with their suffering, kind of this 'who would I be if I wasn't suffering?' Maybe in this way they are the most four-ish four? It seems to me that all fours identify with suffering, but maybe with the social it's an extreme version of this?)

Self pres: I need to endure by denying my suffering.

So combining those makes for some interesting mash-ups, no?

The 4 is masochistic, and while I see a 4 sx turning more on others, I think it's more like:
"I need to fulfill my desires even if it makes ME suffer" and "If I have to suffer, then so will you!".

And self-pres is more like "I will endure suffering to show others how significant & special I am, so they will regret not saving me when I finally crumble." Van Gogh is always the excellent example there. That's also why I mention crumbling inwardly. It's the whole "If I died, then everyone would suddenly feel so sorry about how they ignored me". The idea is of destroying oneself to finally show how significant you were, as if this can only be felt through your absence. In a more literal way, the endurance is a sacrifice of your needs & turning your suffering into proof you are significant. Being a 4, the sacrifice is often turned towards others still - "I have sacrificed romance or social success because I am not significant for others to care & would be a burden". Then comes the indulgence or recklessness, justified through your sacrifices (it seems like self-soothing, even if destructive in small ways).

I see so-dom as more vengeful - they will become the elite to finally reject others, or so goes the fantasy. And sx-dom are more consuming - they will become significant by eating up your significance, like some kind of black widow. I suppose that's why they're said to be the most competitive. Both turn things outwardly to some degree (to make others feel the shame/envy they do), whereas an sp-dom turns it on themselves mostly.

I relate to all of Naranjo's sub-types pretty heavily. I try and just see how it plays out in my personality as much as in my internal desires and focus, because they are all there internally. If I have an area that pains me or consumes my thoughts the most, then it's always the sx stuff, but I just chalk that up to being a 4.

As for energy, I am not calming so much as stifling perhaps. I think an sp-dom 4 is like a downer at a happy party, not by whining like an so-dom might or taking a dismissive air or seeming pathetic to draw attention, but with a stoney air that asks to be ignord. There's a heaviness that makes others uncomfortable though, like you're a reminder that pain & sadness exists in life. The soothing, calming sp-dom sounds so much more 9ish. I see sx-dom as being more overtly demanding.

My conjecture states that the ISTP and ESFJ's were not four. The ESFJ was probably a mistyped two and the ISTP a six or a nine. Being a four is being internally focused, emotional, being removed from reality and delusional/irrational in a way which spices up the broth.

P.S. There is nothing incredible about being normal (unless you were to argue there is no normal and that by becoming "normal" you have achieved an incredible feat.)

Agreed.

 

[brainheart]

The 4 is masochistic, and while I see a 4 sx turning more on others, I think it's more like:
"I need to fulfill my desires even if it makes ME suffer" and "If I have to suffer, then so will you!".

Yeah okay, that makes more sense to me, especially because I'm sx/sp. I'd say I hurt myself more than I hurt others, but I also get really angry and take it out on others when I'm in pain, even if I don't mean to. Not cool. I think sp/sx fours are more stoic than me. My stoicism has a definite threshold and then I explode.

I do very much relate to what Naranjo says about sexual fours pushing so hard that they get rejected. That's happened to me many times. I can see how that would go along with what you call 'demanding' about them at a party.

I love what you say about self pres four. I relate a lot. I've definitely had the Van Gogh fantasies. It's kind of funny how pathetic it is, isn't it? The lengths we fours will go to.

'Becoming elite to reject others'... yeah, I don't relate to that at all.

 

[Amargith]

K, you people are making me wonder if I have a secret sp side now that Im so not aware of

I go out of my way to make sure I don't influence others. Granted, that as something I needed to work on and wasn't naturally, but Ive *always* turned on myself in favour of turning on others if I could help it.

 

[Standuble]

K, you people are making me wonder if I have a secret sp side now that Im so not aware of

I go out of my way to make sure I don't influence others. Granted, that as something I needed to work on and wasn't naturally, but Ive *always* turned on myself in favour of turning on others if I could help it.

I'm assuming on some level you received gratification by turning upon yourself. Chances are that by influencing the opinions of others will produce an emotional reaction within which is greater than that created by self-depreciation. However if that reaction isn't guilt and it's not incongruent with who you are (and action seems logical enough) then why not influence others? I've manipulated people just for fun before but also influenced them to value my opinions. There's nothing inherently wrong with it and if you feel the shame tomorrow then that's too bad.

 

[Amargith]

I'm assuming on some level you received gratification by turning upon yourself. Chances are that by influencing the opinions of others will produce an emotional reaction within which is greater than that created by self-depreciation. However if that reaction isn't guilt and it's not incongruent with who you are (and action seems logical enough) then why not influence others? I've manipulated people just for fun before but also influenced them to value my opinions. There's nothing inherently wrong with it and if you feel the shame tomorrow then that's too bad.

Coz...well, I was taught that it was evil and manipulative. My strongest values are amongst others free will and free choice, so it was better to internalise that stuff onto myself than onto others and violate what i treasured. It took me ages to learn the proper parameters for what you could influence others on, and how it was appreciated vs how it was not, due to the fact that I was told that the behaviour in and of itself was just wrong. Working out how to properly use it...took its time.

These days, I have figured it out sort of, but I'm still hypervigilant about it, as I really don't want to overstep - and I still sometimes do, despite my efforts.

Granted, once I have permission to go all out, I do go *ALL* out

 

[Qlip]

Coz...well, I was taught that it was evil and manipulative. My strongest values are amongst others free will and free choice, so it was better to internalise that stuff onto myself than onto others and violate what i treasured. It took me ages to learn the proper parameters for what you could influence others on, and how it was appreciated vs how it was not, due to the fact that I was told that the behaviour in and of itself was just wrong. Working out how to properly use it...took its time.

These days, I have figured it out sort of, but I'm still hypervigilant about it, as I really don't want to overstep - and I still sometimes do, despite my efforts.

Granted, once I have permission to go all out, I do go *ALL* out

Same here, I hate the idea of violating somebody else's free will. I think this is a Fi kind of realization and maybe something very 4, but I'm not sure this is related to instinctual stacking. I do know another ENFP 4, but So who holds similar values. I also know a couple 7s who are all for making things go their way in any way possible.

 

[Sunny Ghost]

[MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION]-very interesting. And thanks for the input. I've been trying to read through it all, but there's just so much. And I don't always feel as though instinct descriptions are concise.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Yeah okay, that makes more sense to me, especially because I'm sx/sp. I'd say I hurt myself more than I hurt others, but I also get really angry and take it out on others when I'm in pain, even if I don't mean to. Not cool. I think sp/sx fours are more stoic than me. My stoicism has a definite threshold and then I explode.

I do very much relate to what Naranjo says about sexual fours pushing so hard that they get rejected. That's happened to me many times. I can see how that would go along with what you call 'demanding' about them at a party.

I love what you say about self pres four. I relate a lot. I've definitely had the Van Gogh fantasies. It's kind of funny how pathetic it is, isn't it? The lengths we fours will go to.

'Becoming elite to reject others'... yeah, I don't relate to that at all.

I'm personally not stoic. I've always been called temperamental from a young age. But there's something more contained, yes. I suspect the sp/so is most contained, perhaps seconded by the so/sp. [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] is notably less fiery than me. There have been a few lengthy threads where my more raw communication wasn't under much bubble wrap.

K, you people are making me wonder if I have a secret sp side now that Im so not aware of

I go out of my way to make sure I don't influence others. Granted, that as something I needed to work on and wasn't naturally, but Ive *always* turned on myself in favour of turning on others if I could help it.

Yeah, but some of this is disintegration to 2 delusions where pride makes you think you've suffered in silence when you probably haven't. When I say "you", I mean "me".

 

[Amargith]

I'm personally not stoic. I've always been called temperamental from a young age. But there's something more contained, yes. I suspect the sp/so is most contained, perhaps seconded by the so/sp. [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] is notably less fiery than me. There have been a few lengthy threads where my more raw communication wasn't under much bubble wrap.



Yeah, but some of this is disintegration to 2 delusions where pride makes you think you've suffered in silence when you probably haven't. When I say "you", I mean "me".

Oh, no doubt, but that stuff feels iciy coz youre lying to yourself though. It is easily identified from the rest.

 

[brainheart]

I'm personally not stoic. I've always been called temperamental from a young age. But there's something more contained, yes. I suspect the sp/so is most contained, perhaps seconded by the so/sp. [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION] is notably less fiery than me. There have been a few lengthy threads where my more raw communication wasn't under much bubble wrap.

That makes sense, and I agree the sp and so combos appear the most contained. Still, you seem more contained than me. Compared to a sx/so, though, I look very contained (I think). I think sx/sps can be especially confusing because of our pronounced on/off switch. I think a good portion of the time we can seem sp/sx to others, unless we're on. Then you see the dominant sexual instinct in all its over-the-top glory. Sx/sos strike me as more consistently on.

 

[hjgbujhghg]

I am so/sp and I can be very passionate and temperamental, the only difference is, that my passion is usually not turn toward a person, but more toward idea, opinions, politics, social systems, changes...I can be very passionate in debate, but cold in relationship.

 

[Stansmith]

[MENTION=5494]Amargith[/MENTION], I wonder if it would be more accurate to say that the contra flow types employ more veils and mirrors and walls than the syn flow types, who are more likely to present themselves as is. In that way the syn flow type is more 'human' while in that way the contra type rejects their humanity.

I can kind of relate to how you describe contra-flow types, at times. I can often come off as an Sp/Sx, although So-dynamics are usually at the forefront of my mind in some way or another. Even posting in this thread, I wonder whether or not it's 'appropriate' considering the majority of the people posting here are 4s.

 

[Amargith]

I am so/sp and I can be very passionate and temperamental, the only difference is, that my passion is usually not turn toward a person, but more toward idea, opinions, politics, social systems, changes...I can be very passionate in debate, but cold in relationship.

I've noticed that, indeed. Sx is generally associated with fire and passion, but so doms and sp doms are just as fiery and passionate about their priorities in life.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'd say Ennegram 4s are actually the easiest to categorize out of all the Ennegram types. They seem to all have a lot in common.

 

[Noll]

I'd say Ennegram 4s are actually the easiest to categorize out of all the Ennegram types. They seem to all have a lot in common.

I'm always sure I give off a 5-vibe more than anything else, IRL. But I suppose you mean slightly deeper than just impressions from strangers.