[Traditional Enneagram] Why do people mistype as 4 Sx when the descriptions sound so awful?

[Luminous]

You can make a thread on it if you want, though I don't see the relevance of your question to my post. My intent was to discuss why Sx 4 is often a mistype magnet - and I believe the greatest source of this stems from mistyped Enneagram authors and teachers.

Okay. I just wondered since you included photos of the teachers in your post.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

You can make a thread on it if you want, though I don't see the relevance of your question to my post. My intent was to discuss why Sx 4 is often a mistype magnet - and I believe the greatest source of this stems from mistyped Enneagram authors and teachers.

Don't come to my thread and tell my friend how she should interact in it.

As for your commentary on the self-typing of the pros... yes, I do think there is rampant error, although I'm not agreeing with your analyses specifically.

David Fauvre is annoying af to me. He appears like a style-less sexual-blind 4, but I find him so boring that I haven't taken the time to truly analyze him. In fact, I'm generally unimpressed with the Fauvres about half the time, particularly their own analyses of others.

With that said, the last thing I would ever want to do is pretend that I am more experienced and insightful than someone who has dedicated 20 years of "research" to the field (the quotes are obligatory although I'm not intending to be overly patronizing).

I don't think that the mistyping of pros themselves is contributing tremendously to the rampant mistyping of sexual 4. Rather, I think there are an awful lot of armchair professionals who barely qualify as hobbyists and don't know how to mine information from reliable sources. Pop-cultural sites, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. Type 4 as a whole is fantastically glorified to a point where it's been mutated enough to make an actual 4 envious.

 

[Boogie man]

Don't come to my thread and tell my friend how she should interact in it.

You see what you wish to see. What transpired is not how you say it did. A suggestion was made, not a command.

 

[Boogie man]

As for your commentary on the self-typing of the pros... yes, I do think there is rampant error, although I'm not agreeing with your analyses specifically.

David Fauvre is annoying af to me. He appears like a style-less sexual-blind 4, but I find him so boring that I haven't taken the time to truly analyze him. In fact, I'm generally unimpressed with the Fauvres about half the time, particularly their own analyses of others.

With that said, the last thing I would ever want to do is pretend that I am more experienced and insightful than someone who has dedicated 20 years of "research" to the field (the quotes are obligatory although I'm not intending to be overly patronizing).

I don't think that the mistyping of pros themselves is contributing tremendously to the rampant mistyping of sexual 4. Rather, I think there are an awful lot of armchair professionals who barely qualify as hobbyists and don't know how to mine information from reliable sources. Pop-cultural sites, podcasts, YouTube channels, etc. Type 4 as a whole is fantastically glorified to a point where it's been mutated enough to make an actual 4 envious.

If the roots are rotten, the tree will not bear any good fruit.

I prefer to lay a greater blame to those who carry the greater responsibility.

 

[draon9]

A lot of them are either depressed or are 2s integrated to a four or 1 disintegrated to a 4 or enneagram 9s

 

[Yuurei]

The a lot of stereotyping and short hand in personality typing ( But you know that)

This one is probably based on the "Crazy Ex".

 

[Luminous]

I think there is a huge issue with people thinking they have someone "pegged" as if they are able to "see through them" or something but in my experience it's sometimes (often?) arrogance. Or that is how it appears to me due to the befuddling nature of the whole "I can see through you" when the other person is being genuine and being misunderstood.

I have seen for instance the debate over sx or whatever rile so many people up, several of which are likely actual sx types, and they have completely valid points, but seemingly the reality of that is ignored for...idk, someone's own personal version of reality.

So yes, I am inherently skeptical of the claim that someone(s) know what is "right and correct" and people seemingly just are too unaware of themselves.

I disagree with that, I see a lot of issues with that, so I cannot really answer the question itself since I don't know if there really is a base for it.

The sx 4s I have known were sx 4s. Not that that didn't stop people from questioning it though. Or their stacking.

I think it's not an issue (or not as much an issue) of people not knowing themselves, but of people not knowing the enneagram well enough to accurately type themselves.

 

[Luminous]

The reason(s) mentioned were something about mistyping as 4 due to thinking they are different.

Now, there are several ways to see this, and to me it looks like the other person claiming X person does not know the enneagram might actually be wrong because this person can actually deeply resonate with the 4 archetype but it's possible due to online communication the full depth of what they are communicating is not being appreciated.

Does not necessarily mean "they don't know they enneagram" or that they don't know themselves (and I mean for instance in the example I used there is definitely this indication they don't know themselves, or haven't looked into themselves, very "deeply")

And there are plenty of tests and sites that basically say if you have deep emotions then you're a 4. That doesn't mean those sites are right. It's a reason that people may mistype themselves and overlook the specific 4sx descriptions that say they are jealous, angry, etc.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

If one cares absolutely about originality, then what is there to compete with? Competition requires sameness with the external world for comparison. The best competitions are those where people are trying to be or do exactly the same thing and one does it clearly better like a long jump. "I jumped 4 feet, well I jumped 5". The second person is better and wins the competition. So, you can say that two people could compete about who can write the weirdest songs, but then there is an external measure again. Yes, they may both achieve "weird" because it is different from a larger norm, but the moment they start competing they are at least unoriginal to the extent of their sameness to each other - being copy cats. The meme of comparing "apples and oranges" is the entire foundation of originality. Maybe people who write enneagram description don't even understand everything about humanity. Maybe some descriptions are wrong or constructed poorly with inner incompatible notions like the one described here.

There are a lot of complex dichotomies in Sx4 like autonomy and originality and also the attachments of Sx-dom. Perhaps the above falls into that same principle. When there are inner conflicting dichotomies, generalizations become even more problematic because people organize those inconsistencies in different ways to make sense of their own selves and their realities. The dichotomy of autonomy and attachment is one that makes a lot of sense inside my own self, because it has to do with a shared, reflected sense of reality where uniqueness exists in part from its perception in the eyes of another.

The descriptions of 4s are embarrassing to me which I why I avoided it for a while because I hide most of those flaws, but I also don't think some stranger out there can write a theory that defines me, so I don't worry about it that much because it's absurd to think they could. Sometimes I'm right and theory is wrong.

 

[Luminous]

interesting, could you link me those? .

Yes, I do sincerely think you are more knowledgeable about enneagram than many people.

Enneagram Test - Tritype with Wings

Enneagram Dimensions

TrueSelf App

https://sakinorva.net/test/rheti

Hurley/Dobson Enneagram Test

https://www.idrlabs.com/enneagram/test.php

Above are some of the tests that told me I'm a 4.

 

[Yuurei]

And there are plenty of tests and sites that basically say if you have deep emotions then you're a 4. That doesn't mean those sites are right. It's a reason that people may mistype themselves and overlook the specific 4sx descriptions that say they are jealous, angry, etc.

I think is this is perfectly accurate about mistypes 4's, but I think Sx complicates things a bit more. ( Or does it?)

I'm not well-versed in scionics so I can only make guesses.

 

[Luminous]

I think is this is perfectly accurate about mistypes 4's, but I think Sx complicates things a bit more. ( Or does it?)

I'm not well-versed in scionics so I can only make guesses.

Sx/sp can look 4ish.

 

[Yuurei]

Sx/sp can look 4ish.

Oh. Well then. That explains that.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

It's the most common mistype, and in my opinion the most unappealing type to be. Jealous. Angry. Competitive. Insecure. Dramatic. Emotionally unstable. Hot and cold..... etc etc etc.

So why do people so willingly type as sexual 4? Why would one want to claim all of those if they didn't have to?

Enneagram test and bad descriptions assuming that feelers are 4s.

 

[Peter Deadpan]

Enneagram test and bad descriptions assuming that feelers are 4s.

I'm just going to stick with my original opinion that people don't actually understand what it means to be ennea-type 4. It's not something to want to be or cling to if you aren't.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's the INFJ of the enneagram

 

[Indigo Rodent]

I'm just going to stick with my original opinion that people don't actually understand what it means to be ennea-type 4. It's not something to want to be or cling to if you aren't.

Yeah, it's because of the test and many descriptions making it look like it's a typical feeler Enneatype, not a deep pathology which would be more typical for tertiary and inferior feeling. That's why most people don't understand it. I only realised that I'm not a 4 after literally a decade or something when I've read about motivations, early childhood experiences, etc.

 

[Tonitrum]

Enneagram 4's are known for being Angry and Competitive? First time I'm hearing this... I thought those are enneagram 8, 6 or 3 traits.

 

[Earl Grey]

You know the phenomenon where lots of typology profiles are generic and of good and relatable traits and thus it makes it easy to see one's self in it? And how the deadass opposite also happens, eg with dark triad stuff (psychopathy and co.)? I think that might be it. Folks prone to going 'I relate to the psychopathy checklist, am I a psychopath?' probably do the same with similar 'extreme negatives' in profiles in general. Or maybe some just do relate to it, either truly do relate, or out of a distorted self-image.

also yippee rare unique type

 

[RadicalDoubt]

Enneagram 4's are known for being Angry and Competitive? First time I'm hearing this... I thought those are enneagram 8, 6 or 3 traits.

Actually yes, specifically in subtype descriptions. Sx4s in particular often mistype as 8s because of the level of intensity to shame as it is expressed that is brought out specifically by sx. The attraction/passion/"hyperfocus" that sx tends to bring out as well makes 4 somewhat competitive in it's suffering and identity/uniqueness seeking, although it is notable that a 3 wing in particular would especially bring this sort of behavior out.

Sp4 and so4 are less of those two things, though I can easily see 4 as a type being competitive with in respect to identity and suffering, more so in a comparative way though most likely.