User Tag List

First 5678 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 77

  1. #61
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    @Starry,

    Actually the Fauvres give him as an example of a Social Four. I don't think their argument is the best, and that's not why I think that could be his type, but they are people who type him that way.

    If he is indeed a 5w4, I agree on the sx/sp. And this is where enneagram types plus instincts get tricky. Because most- I want to say all but I want to allow for exceptions- most fours want intimate soul mates. It's like the lifetime Four fantasy- to find that special someone. It's why most (not all) fours identify with the sexual instinct descriptions when it's described as 'one to one' and 'intimacy'.

    I'm going to give an example: I have a friend who is a social four, and probably a so/sp at that (it's how he types himself), and he has been going on and on for the last five months about his former best friend/girlfriend who got away. He is obsessed with this girl and they were best friends. They spent every waking moment together. They were very intimate and attached at the hip.

    So why isn't he a sx dom? Because it's different for sexual fours. As I mentioned before, they are extremely idealistic and selective when it comes to romantic relationships. They are looking for the perfect diamond. So what you will see with sexual fours is them getting really excited about someone, and then just as quickly discarding them for not fitting their ideal. For this reason sexual fours often don't go past the starry eyed phase in a relationship. It's not that they don't want a relationship and don't want to commit- they do, very much- but they will only settle for the perfect person.

    Kurt did not do this. He got married and had a baby young and had a best friend he spent all his time with. I have yet to see a sexual four behave this way. Others will likely disagree, but I'm just going by what I've noticed. Something I'm beginning to think, actually, is that sexual second fours probably often pair with sexual doms of other types, because they have more in common with them than they do of sexual seconds of other types. I know, for example, that I really don't relate to sp/sx of other enneagram types, moreso sx/sp. And it's part of why I'm starting to think my husband could be sx/so rather than so/sx. (That and something from the Bea Chestnut sexual seven description.)

    (I'd like @Noll's and @cascadeco's take on this.)

  2. #62
    libtard SJW chickpea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sx/sp
    Posts
    4,960

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    he's so doped up in this video

    and tbh I find it very hard to judge his type based on his relationship, because it was heavily fueled by drugs the whole way. i definitely think so-last though.. i'm pretty sure i've seen sp/sx suggested for him as well.

  3. #63
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starry View Post
    OA, I'll be honest with you and say that I get the sense...from your initial post as well as this more recent response I've quoted...that you were looking for some amusement last night in the form of argument/debate...or perhaps there's some unknown element in what I've said that bothers you (I sometimes think just anyone talking about INFP e4 bothers you tbh)...and so you're challenging me merely to challenge. <-Which normally I welcome. Seriously, I will play 'devil's advocate' in my own mind just to solidify my understanding of things. But you aren't really functioning as such and so I'm left with no comprehension of what your aim is here.
    It was just a regular ol', rather tame, conversation to me
    That's not an argument or challenge in my book.

    The stuff about NFPs being long-winded was genuine curiosity from me as to how you reached that impression because I have the exact opposite one of INFPs, and certainly I don't fit you idea. I wasn't saying "you're wrong" as I wasn't even quite sure what you were referring to. When I semi-agree with someone, it's just repeating back what I heard to clarify it & to add my take on it. I don't see how this is "challenging" someone, nor do I see 100% agreement necessary for a non-debate discussion.

    What is it that you're wanting me to submit/surrender to? The reason I'm asking this...the reason I'm saying you're merely challenging to challenge is because you're taking an argumentative stance...and yet not entirely disagreeing with me either...which may in fact be because you sense it would be foolish to do so.
    I'm not wanting you to submit or surrender to anything. It's discussion, not a competition.

    You indicate that your main point is "who we relate to in the movies doesn't necessarily indicate our type." Which good to know and thank you for that. Now, as would be expected, this particular comment would probably have more of an impact on me if what I was expressing was the opposite...as in "If you relate to a movie character...find out what that movie character's type is... because their type will be your type"...but that's not what I'm saying. And while I can certainly appreciate your input...I'm left with nothing that accounts for your critical tone. Like I just said...I think something may have irritated you on some level and this is the sole reason you are countering me...and in this way it feels unnecessary to restate this all for the sake of "understanding" but let's have at it...
    I get more of a critical tone from you here. It DID seem you were suggesting that if someone relates very heavily to a character, so much as to suggest they & the character are the same type, yet that character is mostly typed otherwise by other people, that such a person may be mistyped.
    All I was saying is I don't think it means a whole lot.



    My statements here are 100% Clementine specific. They begin and end with Clementine. There's absolutely no need to bring up Amelie...or any other character that is complex, multi-faceted and/or mute (which in my mind opens the door to far more subjective type interpretation and identification) because they don't apply here. There's absolutely no need to bring up other characters that are generally understood to be e7 either. Why? Because most characters on the "silver screen"...even the "commonly understood as e7" ones...are actually characters and not caricatures… which allows for doubt and again, a good deal of subjective interpretation.
    Amelie IS a caricature. That was the point. It was an illustration using a similar situation (a caricature on screen of a type who may relate to, despite not sharing that type, or the "whole type"). I obviously found it "necessary" to illustrate what I was saying. If you don't see the relevance, fine, but is it really offensive? I don't understand the offense here.

    Now here's the crazy thing I'm doing... I'm taking the 2-dimensional, personification of the general e7 description known as the character 'Clementine'...and using her to make what was for me an amusing statement on the fact that so many e7s mistype as e4s (<-the fact you're challenging this is made more confusing when I consider how I've heard you allude to this same phenomenon many times. I thought you of all members would be in agreement.) So in an effort to summarize: I believe ExFPs can be 4w3s. I also believe ExFPs can identify with the character of Clementine and still be 4w3s. Now here's where things start to fall apart for me... Once an individual insists that the character of Clementine is an e4...right then and there I will have lost a substantial amount of faith in that individual's grasp of enneagram theory. Based solely on the nature of Clementine...I now no longer trust the person's skillz outright. But if in addition to the previous claim that same individual states that they are an ENFP 4w3...and proceeds to use as their primary evidence their significant identification with the character for why she's obviously enneagram 4... well, now everything changes as the odds of who's "right and wrong" ("understanding and not understanding enneagram theory") have shifted to the other side.
    It seemed you didn't think this, with all the talk of elves, so thanks for the clarification. I do understand the rest, how poor typing skills may be exposed, etc.

    Enneagram is not a science...but keeping track of probability...as new variables are introduced...is. ^When I put together everything I know about Clementine and common ENFP e7 mistypes...I believe the odds are on the side of "this individual is a mistyped e7."
    I understand this reasoning, as I said, but still don't agree with the conclusion. I suspect the individual is mistyping the character as 4 due to relating, not necessarily that they are both 7s, although that too is possible. Even someone with decent grasp of enneagram may be blinded to type when there's a "personal attachment".
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  4. #64
    Sugar Hiccup OrangeAppled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Socionics
    IEI Ni
    Posts
    7,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    @Starry,

    Actually the Fauvres give him as an example of a Social Four. I don't think their argument is the best, and that's not why I think that could be his type, but they are people who type him that way.
    I suspect it's because both 4 & 5 so are described as being critics of social issues (4s leaning more towards the arts, perhaps). Cobain had a fair amount of critical commentary on social issues, including in his lyrics, especially towards "traditional masculinity" and being famous.
    He's lacking the whininess of the so-dom 4 & desire to be seen as elite (compare to the likes of Morrissey or Proust, however they are 4w3), but if he's 5 that's a different story.

    I'm going to give an example: I have a friend who is a social four, and probably a so/sp at that (it's how he types himself), and he has been going on and on for the last five months about his former best friend/girlfriend who got away. He is obsessed with this girl and they were best friends. They spent every waking moment together. They were very intimate and attached at the hip.
    Just curious... how is his "going on about"? Whiny or angry?
    I tend to hate exes, or be a bit contemptuous at best. I will "go on about it", but it's angry or dismissive (ie. they were lucky to have been with me & I didn't really like them much anyway).

    So why isn't he a sx dom? Because it's different for sexual fours. As I mentioned before, they are extremely idealistic and selective when it comes to romantic relationships. They are looking for the perfect diamond. So what you will see with sexual fours is them getting really excited about someone, and then just as quickly discarding them for not fitting their ideal. For this reason sexual fours often don't go past the starry eyed phase in a relationship. It's not that they don't want a relationship and don't want to commit- they do, very much- but they will only settle for the perfect person.

    Kurt did not do this. He got married and had a baby young and had a best friend he spent all his time with. I have yet to see a sexual four behave this way. Others will likely disagree, but I'm just going by what I've noticed. Something I'm beginning to think, actually, is that sexual second fours probably often pair with sexual doms of other types, because they have more in common with them than they do of sexual seconds of other types. I know, for example, that I really don't relate to sp/sx of other enneagram types, moreso sx/sp. And it's part of why I'm starting to think my husband could be sx/so rather than so/sx. (That and something from the Bea Chestnut sexual seven description.)
    I would've guessed sp 4s to be the most autonomous & least likely to pair off young. It has to do with the "not asking" for what one desires, but struggling along in hopes of a reward for your pain & endurance. The shame seems to be inhibiting, less conscious, but you don't want to burden others with "needs" (very 5ish in that respect).

    I do see sx 4s as being very love/hate (and I experience that when things go sour for me, being sx 2nd), but Cobain wasn't married THAT long & some accounts have it that he was on the verge of leaving Love & had some nasty stuff to say about her. So... I suspect he is not sp at all. I don't know why that's even in the mix....? Maybe so/sx. He's not quite angry enough to be sx dom to me, but sx/so 4 seems to fit him decently in the Ocean Moonshine description, IMO.

    I do agree with the relating more to sx dom of other types because being 4 makes you relate so heavily to sx-y stuff. But I'm far more at "arm's length" than an sx dom of any type (& perhaps sp dom 4s are the most "hard to reach"), so that I do see the similarity to other sp dom even if I don't desire that distance from others.
    Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

    INFP | 4w5 sp/sx | RLUEI - Primary Inquisitive | Tritype is tripe

  5. #65
    brainheart
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    I suspect it's because both 4 & 5 so are described as being critics of social issues (4s leaning more towards the arts, perhaps). Cobain had a fair amount of critical commentary on social issues, including in his lyrics, especially towards "traditional masculinity" and being famous.
    He's lacking the whininess of the so-dom 4 & desire to be seen as elite (compare to the likes of Morrissey or Proust, however they are 4w3), but if he's 5 that's a different story.
    i don't even really care about Kurt Cobain's etype/instinct or have a super strong opinion so I don't even know why I went there. But I can say for sure he isn't sx/sp 4w5. Or sp/sx 4w5. And I, too, think there is a social element there.



    Just curious... how is his "going on about"? Whiny or angry?
    I tend to hate exes, or be a bit contemptuous at best. I will "go on about it", but it's angry or dismissive (ie. they were lucky to have been with me & I didn't really like them much anyway).
    Whiny and lots of self blame.

  6. #66
    Undisciplined Starry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OrangeAppled View Post
    It was just a regular ol', rather tame, conversation to me
    That's not an argument or challenge in my book.

    The stuff about NFPs being long-winded was genuine curiosity from me as to how you reached that impression because I have the exact opposite one of INFPs, and certainly I don't fit you idea. I wasn't saying "you're wrong" as I wasn't even quite sure what you were referring to. When I semi-agree with someone, it's just repeating back what I heard to clarify it & to add my take on it. I don't see how this is "challenging" someone, nor do I see 100% agreement necessary for a non-debate discussion.
    I'm not like the INFJs here in that I feel the need to first ascertain whether an individual's intentions are good (towards me or in general I guess)...and then with that respond or dismiss and ignore. While 'good intentions' has meaning for me in my private life and social realm... once I step into an intellectual arena... 'good intentions' receives no more positive value than 'bad.' They are quite equal to me here as there's much to learn from both sources. And here's why I do want to know what I'm dealing with. IOW, it won't change *if* I will engage you and value what you have to say. But it will alter what I'm looking for, what I bring in and how I process the information, etc. <-Again, these are neutral measures and truth be told I'm often more leary of people with good intentions haha because I find the dishonesty can at times be on a grander scale. But I want to know and with you it's very hard to tell. You really do put off a vibe of artificial surface innocence...while underneath attempting to make people dance and look like fools. Which I don't have a problem with...if this is in fact the case. I'll even dance and look like a fool... but for my intellectual pursuits...I want to understand who I'm dancing for.

    The comments I made that you are referencing above...they were misunderstood by you and I became confused myself preoccupied with the concerns I just wrote about. So let me explain it one more time because ultimately the message was a simple one.

    With regards to the written word...as it pertains to both the ENFP and INFP. People are looking for the fantastical...the whimsical...the airy, spacey, bubbly and bizarre. <-When people see this...this is Ne to them. This is what says to them Ne-user (Ne dom/aux)

    ^^ I was saying 'No.' I've actually seen a handful of members completely mistyped by the entire forum basically supporting this obvious 'Ne indicator'... and it's absolute bullshit...ranking 2nd in my world to members getting typed as N if they demonstrate an intellectual leaning. Do we write spacey and at times at a tl:dr length? Of course we do. Right alongside a whole bunch of other individuals and types that do just the same. What I said was this..."Let us not look for Ne in a hundred silly sentences...but in the one powerful (not whimsical) sentence with a hundred profound thoughts." <-That's Ne.



    I'm not wanting you to submit or surrender to anything. It's discussion, not a competition.
    It doesn't feel like a competition.



    I get more of a critical tone from you here. It DID seem you were suggesting that if someone relates very heavily to a character, so much as to suggest they & the character are the same type, yet that character is mostly typed otherwise by other people, that such a person may be mistyped.
    All I was saying is I don't think it means a whole lot.

    I didn't read your post all the way through but rather I'm reading sections and responding as I go... I meant my critical tone for the reasons I outlined above. As for e7 there may be a link in our responses (me/sis). I'm pretty sure your sister is ESFP... I know we are impatient as e7 and pushy. So maybe with your sis there's a *This* is the information I need to answer your question and I've grown weary of your imagery...give me *This* so we can move forward now. <-This is in a sense precisely how I feel when coming up against what I described in my first paragraph...which to say this is not an attempt to throw the blame back onto you. What I described is something you may want to consider because e7s aren't the only type that is coming up against something in you. I wouldn't have thought to admit to this had you not brought it up but yes, I am impatient as I can't move forward without certain things and will become exasperated and critical...especially if I'm taking the time to ask for them.

    Amelie IS a caricature. That was the point. It was an illustration using a similar situation (a caricature on screen of a type who may relate to, despite not sharing that type, or the "whole type"). I obviously found it "necessary" to illustrate what I was saying. If you don't see the relevance, fine, but is it really offensive? I don't understand the offense here.



    It seemed you didn't think this, with all the talk of elves, so thanks for the clarification. I do understand the rest, how poor typing skills may be exposed, etc.

    I have a vague understanding that I have seen the movie Amelie...but have no recollection of this character and don't remember it as being a caricature. I can't say I was offended...My reaction goes back to being unable to determine what your intent is/was. I was also under the impression it was quite obvious my comments were meant to be amusing...in spite of the fact there is truth there for me. If a self-proclaimed e4 relates so strongly to Clementine that they actually believe she's "also a 4" that's ridiculous in my mind and oh hell yah I'm thinking elves or chemical toxins are involved. But that's it. That's the end of the joke. I have no joke for Amelie.

  7. #67
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp
    Socionics
    INFj Ne
    Posts
    783

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by brainheart View Post
    @(I'd like Noll's and @cascadeco's take on this.)
    I'm sorry for replying so late, I have been lazy. I have always been unsure about Kurt Cobain's type, but I'm very sure he was social-dom at the very least. He didn't give off any sp-vibes in my opinion. Sp tends to come across as either classy, snobby or reserved. Social-doms are usually the 'true' social critics.
    4w5-9w1-5w4

  8. #68
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    MBTI
    ENXP
    Enneagram
    SX8 sx/sp
    Posts
    36

    Default

    I would suggest he could be the "anti-social" social infp 4w3 5w4 9w8....His focus was counter culture which is a social focus and he had a fear of not selling out. He was identified with his image of being counter culture grunge. He layered his clothing because he was so thin and wanted to fit in...he never felt like he was enough. But, he seems to have been mentally ill in addition to us use of drugs so typing accurately becomes more complicated.

  9. #69
    Senior Member pinkgraffiti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    748 sx/so
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hive View Post
    I fear wasting my time a lot more than getting old.
    i don't know, i don't think about it much. yeah, this.

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Ever since I was a little kid I feared people looked at me and saw a boring old man.

Similar Threads

  1. Am I getting old, or _____________?
    By Gamine in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-04-2016, 12:40 PM
  2. I'm getting old and constantly changing... INTJ or INTP
    By paperoceans in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 11-04-2009, 07:41 PM
  3. Hey old people! Get in here a sec.
    By erm in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-28-2009, 11:36 PM
  4. Man Gets 1 Year in Prison for Rape and Sodomization of 4 Yr Old
    By INA in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 06-26-2009, 12:20 PM
  5. Getting Old
    By nolla in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 01:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO