You're right. I'm putting this out of context. I read the whole chapter on fours and identified with all of it, not just the self pres four description. Besides, I already was sure I was a four anyway. I wouldn't recommend people determine their type merely on these descriptions. Thanks for pointing this out because I meant to say something about it but forgot. For example, I would never mistype myself as a one or a three. And I think it's rare for sexual fours not to see themselves as fours as well. I actually think the most frequent mistypes would be self pres fours thinking they're fives (guilty of this), social fours thinking they're sixes (I think this happens a lot), and sexual fours thinking they're... well, fours- possibly other reactive types. Other mistypes happen, but I think in general this is how it works.
To play devil's advocate, though, I've always seen a lot of so/sp four in you. Back in the distant perC past when you typed yourself as six, I thought.. so/sp four. You are extremely self-referential and you talk about the damages incurred on you in the past a lot. That's got social four written all over it. But I'm not going to say you're wrong because obviously you know yourself better than I ever could.
Yes, she regurgitates a lot of Naranjo. I would call this book a more palatable version of Naranjo, minus all the outdated Freud stuff. But she does also add onto what he said, go into subtypes in greater detail, and give quite a bit of info on ways to improve. I like how she connects the types to Dante's Inferno (one of my absolute favorite books) and the Odyssey. I always like me some metaphors
Yeah, exactly. That's the point. I honestly don't give a rat's ass whether I'm sp/sx or sx/sp, but I know that the self pres description points out a lot of things I unconsciously do, real hurdles and frustrations in my life, and it's made me aware of them. It's been really cathartic....because if this really helps you discover something about yourself, I say go for it.