User Tag List

First 81617181920 Last

Results 171 to 180 of 200

  1. #171
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    SX/SO

    SX is what comes naturally to me.

    SO is something I have trouble with. Nonetheless, it is something still used.

  2. #172
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by VagrantFarce View Post
    I'm not arguing that it's "only" theoretical, or that it isn't applicable - what I'm arguing is that it's subjective and that it paints best with broad strokes, and shouldn't be treated as an objective and extensible catalogue.
    Agree. I also think that these instinctual subtypes, although sometimes easy to identificate, serve little to no purpose. I mean, saying that a sx 8 is similar to a sx 4 because both are moved by the need of intimacy over social or self-preservation needs, is pretty much like saying that both are similar because they were born in the same country, in a similar family and have similar tastes. The fact is that they're probably very different.
    We could also divide each type in many subtypes according to our favorite colours, instead of our instincts; everybody would fit comfortably into a subtype, but that wouldn't be very descriptive or useful either.

    (Well, sorry for getting in the middle of the arguing).
    you will hear one ugly voice and see one ugly spirit
    is made of ugly old prerecordings the more you run the tapes through and cut them up the less power they will have
    cut the prerecordings into air into thin air (The Ticket that Exploded- William Burroughs)

  3. #173
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taylor17387 View Post
    Agree. I also think that these instinctual subtypes, although sometimes easy to identificate, serve little to no purpose.
    Yes, that's why it serve so little purpose that Lady Gaga and GWBS are so similars.

    I mean, saying that a sx 8 is similar to a sx 4 because both are moved by the need of intimacy over social or self-preservation needs, is pretty much like saying that both are similar because they were born in the same country, in a similar family and have similar tastes.
    No, because nothing of this is supposed to gove information about the personality.

    We could also divide each type in many subtypes according to our favorite colours, instead of our instincts;
    No because it does'nt give clues about the personality either.

    Pathetic attempt of trolling.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  4. #174
    Senior Member VagrantFarce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Pathetic attempt of trolling.
    If you want people to engage you on an even level, you need to learn some etiquette. This is a pattern I've noticed - you so easily raise the level of hostility in any discussion you get into, for no good reason. Stop taking attacks on the enneagram so personally, because we're not attacking you.
    Hello

  5. #175
    Senior Member Vizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Yes, I missed the point in my previous post - completely.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    It is an objective system. Everyone has a type. Prove the contrary.

    The enneagram had not been built but discovered. Like the pythagore theorem or something. And the enneagram was initially adopted by pytaghoricians.
    The Enneagram of Personality is just a theory – one theory. It was developed, not discovered. And, uh, there's nothing proven about the Enneagram except for the geometrical figure that the theory was based on.

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Sorry but no, it's not a speculation. It's not something imagined. Theses peoples truly exist and there type is phisically obsevables, there's not "speculation" here. You can type theses people, and then you can type other peoples, I do that everyday, it's a reproductible process, it works. Of course you can't put your head in the sand and neglect the reality to believe you are right, but that don't prevent this process to work.
    I disagree with your claim that people are already in boxes. Perhaps this is more a matter of philosophy than anything else. From where I stand, typology develops the boxes and puts people in them. When someone is difficult to type, he or she is pulled here and prodded there so that they fit into a type “well enough”.

    The Enneagram (or any typology theory out there) is not an objective system in the sense that it is ultimately true and correct.
    Regarding your above quote, yes, these people do exist. And their personalities can be observed - to an extent, of course. As for their types being observable, what's observed is only what you know to observe. You can only see the boxes people are in depending on what boxes you know to base your observations on. Another typologist who uses XYZ-theory may have 35 boxes in his arsenel (and, hence, notices many nuances that you overlook). You do realise that this is all subjective, don't you?
    It’s like claiming that people are born royal. They’re not. They’re born into a society that accepts the idea of royalty and a royal family. Somewhere else in the world, this person will be of a different class.

    For some, even "5w4 INTP 5w4w3-3w2w1-9w1w2 So/Sx/sp SLOAN ILI Phlegmatic-Choleric, Concrete-Random thinker, etc., etc." is not enough. Once you start playing the game, it's sometimes difficult to know where to stop. People get a thrill out of painting a character (their own or someone else’s), giving each little part a colour in order to flesh someone out which, ironically, ends up being redundant as we see people as ‘fact-sheets’ more than humans. That’s one of the dangers of typology going too far, I guess.

    I, for one, admit to not doing any of this for self-help, but for fun.
    5w4
    Reserved RCUEI

  6. #176
    Senior Member Vizzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    229

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rail Tracer View Post
    SX/SO

    SX is what comes naturally to me.

    SO is something I have trouble with. Nonetheless, it is something still used.
    Welcome to the thread.
    There seem to be opposing opinions about which one comes first - the instinct that's more natural or the one that causes more anxiousness...although one wonders if those are mutually exclusive.
    5w4
    Reserved RCUEI

  7. #177
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche View Post
    Pathetic attempt of trolling.
    Pathetic attempt at explaining anything.

    First of all, I don't know if GWBS and Lady Gaga are similar or not; I don't know them personally and you don't know them either. So you're just judging them by their public image, or what other people think they know about them.

    Second, knowing if somebody is more concerned by sex, or social relationships or self-preservation don't say more about their personality than knowing the social environment in which they were born, how they were educated or the kind of films they like. They're just personal needs or characteristics among many others.
    Once you've found the general groups, you can go on forever making subgroups: you can type people by instincts, by the level of aggression they show, by their spiritual interests as opposed to their material interests, by their reaction to traumas, and so on....
    But no matter how many groups you try to make; the final conclusion is that you can't tipify every little characteristic of every person, because all are different.
    you will hear one ugly voice and see one ugly spirit
    is made of ugly old prerecordings the more you run the tapes through and cut them up the less power they will have
    cut the prerecordings into air into thin air (The Ticket that Exploded- William Burroughs)

  8. #178
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vizzy View Post
    The Enneagram of Personality is just a theory – one theory.

    It's not because it's a theory that it's wrong.

    It was developed, not discovered.
    The pattern has been dixcovered, the figure has just been developed to fit with this pattern. It was originally an esoteric knowloedge -like the pytaghore theorem, wich is universally recognised as scientific. Enneagram is more on the side of "soft science", but still objective.

    And, uh, there's nothing proven about te Enneagram except for the geometrical figure that the theory was based on.

    It's proven from millenials that it works.


    I disagree with your claim that people are already in boxes.
    I never said that theses boxes were innates, but they are acquired.

    typology develops the boxes and puts people in them.
    No, people develop their boxes themselves, then the typologist study it and say what is his box.

    When someone is difficult to type, he or she is pulled here and prodded there so that they fit into a type “well enough”.
    No.

    The Enneagram (or any typology theory out there) is not an objective system in the sense that it is ultimately true and correct.

    Prove it.

    Another typologist who uses XYZ-theory may have 35 boxes in his arsenel (and, hence, notices many nuances that you overlook).[/SIZE] You do realise that this is all subjective, don't you?
    The thing is that there's not typology model with 35 categories, and there's objective reasons for that.

    It’s like claiming that people are born royal. They’re not. They’re born into a society that accepts the idea of royalty and a royal family.
    The royal power is dictate by a human authority, the type is acquired in an autopilot process. Completely different. You are next to the plate.

    For some, even "5w4 INTP 5w4w3-3w2w1-9w1w2 So/Sx/sp SLOAN ILI Phlegmatic-Choleric, Concrete-Random thinker, etc., etc." is not enough. Once you start playing the game, it's sometimes difficult to know where to stop.
    Not for me. I choosed to stop with MBTI, Enneagram and Instinctual typology. Some have choosed a more restrictive typology, it's their choice, but that does'nt prevent theses typologies to be accurate. Some others system are bullshit, I know trifix is bullshit, the others system, I don't know, but they don't interest me.

    People get a thrill out of painting a character (their own or someone else’s), giving each little part a colour in order to flesh someone out which, ironically, ends up being redundant as we see people as ‘fact-sheets’ more than humans. That’s one of the dangers of typology going too far, I guess.
    Yes, i agree, Aleksei is a good example of this. Plus he use so much system that id does'nt achieve to master them correctly.

    I, for one, admit to not doing any of this for self-help, but for fun.
    Yes, it seems obvious that you did'nt put too much thought into this.
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  9. #179
    Whisky Old & Women Young Speed Gavroche's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    EsTP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx/sp
    Posts
    5,143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taylor17387 View Post
    First of all, I don't know if GWBS and Lady Gaga are similar or not; I don't know them personally and you don't know them either. So you're just judging them by their public image, or what other people think they know about them.
    Oh yes, of course, you have to know them, date them, marry them, FUCK them to understand that they are different. Of course. Do you realize how stupid it is?

    Second, knowing if somebody is more concerned by sex, or social relationships or self-preservation don't say more about their personality than knowing the social environment in which they were born, how they were educated or the kind of films they like. They're just personal needs or characteristics among many others.
    Once again, it's stupid, the social environment and the place you were born are not part of your personalityt like spontaneous personals behaviors. Are you too much idiot to understand that? Or just hypocrit?

    Once you've found the general groups, you can go on forever making subgroups: you can type people by instincts, by the level of aggression they show, by their spiritual interests as opposed to their material interests, by their reaction to traumas, and so on....
    Bolded are clues wich allow directly to find enneatype and instinctual variant. It's part of it. I don't know what you were trying to prove, but what you say is worthless.

    But no matter how many groups you try to make; the final conclusion is that you can't tipify every little characteristic of every person, because all are different.
    It was never supposed to type every little characteristics but to take in account objectives differences and emotional coping strategies.

    It was never supposed to
    EsTP 6w7 Sx/Sp

    Chaotic Neutral

    E=60% S=55% T=70% P=80%

    "I don't believe in guilt, I only believe in living on impulses"

    "Stereotypes about personality and gender turn out to be fairly accurate: ... On the binary Myers-Briggs measure, the thinking-feeling breakdown is about 30/70 for women versus 60/40 for men." ~ Bryan Caplan

  10. #180
    Freaking Ratchet Rail Tracer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vizzy View Post
    Welcome to the thread.
    There seem to be opposing opinions about which one comes first - the instinct that's more natural or the one that causes more anxiousness...although one wonders if those are mutually exclusive.
    Yeah, I am with @Thunderbringer on this one.

    SX is natural, I don't have to think about it before I am using it. Leave me to my own devices, and it'll go on its own.

    SO is natural in the sense that I "have" to use it, but that same tendency is also why it isn't as natural as SX. It is the subtype that I am the most "aware" of (that is mostly in my conscious.) My surrounding, how I am perceived by others, how I should act accordingly, etc.

    I think of the first as a naive child and the second as an adult telling the child what to do.

Similar Threads

  1. [Socionics] Dual Relationships Between Two People Who Are The Same Gender
    By ChrisFergusonFl in forum Socionics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-04-2016, 10:37 PM
  2. The Push-Pull Relationship between Dominant and Auxiliary Functions
    By Mal12345 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-25-2015, 07:27 PM
  3. Replies: 38
    Last Post: 12-01-2011, 10:13 AM
  4. Replies: 69
    Last Post: 05-04-2011, 11:10 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