[Type 4] Oh my god I'm a self pres four

[brainheart]

Extroversion means "oriented toward the object", as per the original definition of Jung. Is that what you mean?

I "vibe" it as "not inwardly focused" or "requiring external input". Introversion, contrariwise, vibes for me as "lives inside one's head" or "is entertained by one's own mind/thoughts".

Yes. I think this can be more difficult to see online than in person. But in person I think- if you pick up on this sort of stuff- it's pretty obvious.

 

[Elfboy]

[MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION]
this book really drives home the importance of finding one's subtype due to the differences they can bring within the same type. for example, I used to view 4s as petty seeking, over-sensitive whiners, but it turns out that's only the Social 4. Sp 4 is more "nobly suffering in silence" and Sexual 4 is more "feisty opera diva"/"jealous ex boyfriend/girlfriend".

 

[Lady_X]

Expand on what? Are you talking to me? Please tell me, oh cryptic Lady.


[MENTION=17911]Animal[/MENTION], [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION], [MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION], when I talk about extroverts vs introverts, I don't think I'm talking about in the same terms as you are. I don't mean 'out there living it up with bunches of people and being really loud', it's more of a vibe. I guess it's picking up on the cognitive function more than anything, and it's something I did before I knew about Jung. It's just a feeling. Sorry for being so nebulous.

i'm sorry that was my first tapatalk post. i thought i was quoting! haha but i think it was for the op.

 

[brainheart]

[MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION]
this book really drives home the importance of finding one's subtype due to the differences they can bring within the same type. for example, I used to view 4s as petty seeking, over-sensitive whiners, but it turns out that's only the Social 4. Sp 4 is more "nobly suffering in silence" and Sexual 4 is more "feisty opera diva"/"jealous ex boyfriend/girlfriend".

I think you're overgeneralizing, especially because people tend to have a blend of instincts vs a pure instinct. That said, I would say self pres fours can appear like the more 'low maintenance' /autonomous fours, social fours can seem more shy and sensitive, and sexual fours can seem more demanding/reactive. I actually think sexual fours are often not the jealous ex because they are typically the ones doing the leaving due to the relationship not living up to their standards.

 

[Elfboy]

I think you're overgeneralizing, especially because people tend to have a blend of instincts vs a pure instinct. That said, I would say self pres fours can appear like the more 'low maintenance' /autonomous fours, social fours can seem more shy and sensitive, and sexual fours can seem more demanding/reactive. I actually think sexual fours are often not the jealous ex because they are typically the ones doing the leaving due to the relationship not living up to their standards.

I was, in order to make a point.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

[MENTION=17911]Animal[/MENTION], [MENTION=10082]Starry[/MENTION], [MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION], when I talk about extroverts vs introverts, I don't think I'm talking about in the same terms as you are. I don't mean 'out there living it up with bunches of people and being really loud', it's more of a vibe. I guess it's picking up on the cognitive function more than anything, and it's something I did before I knew about Jung. It's just a feeling. Sorry for being so nebulous.

That could be, actually--in terms of what I've read of "cognitive extraversion" (which I don't understand to the same degree as enneagram, mind you), I definitely do fit the criterion there. My mind is clearly on the external world, and I am clearly charged up by interacting with it in some form; I NEED external processing--I'm just very socially withdrawn.

 

[Noll]

I just wanted to say that 4's in general are passionate, there's not a complete lack of sx even in the sx-lasts. From my experience, 4's have features of every instinct despite their actual stacking, more so than any other type. Sx-last 4's might even come across as more passionate, not because they are, but because their idealized self-image may have a more passionate vibe. Think Morrissey (so/sp) vs Bob Dylan (sx/sp). I don't think Morrissey in person is very passionate (not as much as people believe), but his celebrity identity is. This is why typing 4's may be hard, all of us have different ideal self-images we always try living up to. This may change our behavior to some degree. So shut up about sx and passion already. Social-dom 4 AND a three-wing causes some big differences between public image and private life.

 

[Lady_X]

Hey thanks It also made me realize that I'm married to a so/sx (maybe even sx/so?) 7w6 not a so/sx 6w7, which shined a light on a lot of things.

It's a good book.

hey i don't remember knowing this. awesome we should totally be life support mentors or something.haha will have to pick up this book. off to see if amazon has a kindle version so i don't have to wait.

 

[Animal]

That could be, actually--in terms of what I've read of "cognitive extraversion" (which I don't understand to the same degree as enneagram, mind you), I definitely do fit the criterion there. My mind is clearly on the external world, and I am clearly charged up by interacting with it in some form; I NEED external processing--I'm just very socially withdrawn.

Same.

 

[Animal]

I just wanted to say that 4's in general are passionate, there's not a complete lack of sx even in the sx-lasts. From my experience, 4's have features of every instinct despite their actual stacking, more so than any other type. Sx-last 4's might even come across as more passionate, not because they are, but because their idealized self-image may have a more passionate vibe. Think Morrissey (so/sp) vs Bob Dylan (sx/sp). I don't think Morrissey in person is very passionate (not as much as people believe), but his celebrity identity is. This is why typing 4's may be hard, all of us have different ideal self-images we always try living up to. This may change our behavior to some degree. So shut up about sx and passion already. Social-dom 4 AND a three-wing causes some big differences between public image and private life.

The SX instinct isn't about passion. It's about what drives that passion. For that matter, type 4 isn't about passion either; it's also about what drives someone's passion.

Anyone can be passionate.

My So-6 NT friend can make music and art that out-passions mine in his sleep. Sometimes cerebral, detached people are even more passionate when they express emotion because they hold it in the rest of the time.

Those who can only see passion that's "in your face" are missing the truth of what passion IS. Passion that runs deepest is often hidden. It boils beneath the surface. If it comes out too easily, it's explosive, but it's not a deep drive, it's not the force that drives you, it's not the dreams and fears and desires that keep you up at night.


The idea that a 4 is more passionate than another type, or that an SX type is more passionate than another type, would only derive from shallow thinking. Things are not always what they seem at surface. And not even all SX4s, will passionately express themselves in every possible setting. To speak for myself, my manner of expressing myself might appear direct, explosive, emotional… but the things that have deepest personal meaning to me, I will protect with my dear life; they are sacred. This is what I would call "passion," and I am not so quick to spill my deepest passions out for the world to prod.

 

[Noll]

[MENTION=17911]Animal[/MENTION] That is true, tell this to all of the other misinformed idiots. I was talking about romantic passion.

 

[Animal]

[MENTION=17911]Animal[/MENTION] That is true, tell this to all of the other misinformed idiots. I was talking about romantic passion.

Gotcha. Same thing though. Just becuase someone is LOOKING for romantic passion in an instinctual way, and feeds energy from it primarily, doesn't mean they love their partner more. In many cases SX-firsts confuse themselves by jumping head first into something that feeds them energetically, only to realize later that the love didnt have depth. I'm sure you know that too.

I see that we agree, btw. I wrote the post as a response to yours, not a criticism.

 

[brainheart]

[MENTION=17911]Animal[/MENTION] That is true, tell this to all of the other misinformed idiots. I was talking about romantic passion.

I totally agree. I think so/sp fours can be the most romantic of the fours.

 

[Ghost]

I'm with you on this. Maybe that's the sx second talking?

For me, the "watch me endure pain" part doesn't fit with the "want to be seen as strong and resilient" part. If I let other people see that side of me, then it would be harder to appear stoic and unaffected. Choosing to suffer doesn't strike me as virtuous, either. That could be another reason I don't like this part of the description. I keep my feelings to myself so I don't bother anyone, so I can't be humiliated for feeling that way, so they feel less urgent, and so I can be comfortable.

Self-containment is a priority for me. Descriptions that emphasize drama, expressiveness, and unrestrained aspects of 4 don't resonate with me for that reason. The profile you posted in #5 is much closer to what I feel.

Do the 4 Sp folks relate to the above description?

A tiny bit. Sp-first makes the most sense to me, although I've wondered about Sx/sp for 4, 5, and 6. Sx seems to deal in intimacy, intensity, and connections in ways that I don't.

Why do sp 4 descriptions often ignore or flip the sp aspects, anyway? Comfort and security are incredibly important to me. I can easily see how the sp instinct manifests in my daily life, and that might be what drew me to 5.

do other sp 4s relate or is this really out there?

I don't think it's really out there. None of it clicks for me except for the Southern Kross quote. I might be misunderstanding some of it, especially the sections about annihilation anxiety and trying to trigger something "that makes us feel alive and reconnected."

I emotionally detach like a 5 so that the person I like cannot "read" me and possibly humiliate my intense emotions, leaving me to wallow in melodramatic suffering alone without reciprocation and the courage to open up.

This sounds familiar. It doesn't even have to be someone I like.

 

[Noll]

I Am a Rock by Simon & Garfunkel always makes me think of sp 4w5's. Makes sense because Paul Simon was 4w5 sp/sx.

 

[brainheart]

I also like this one:

Self Pres Four, "Creative Individualist"

Survival is viewed as more symbolic than literal. What's key is surviving and transmuting the pain of "something missing" into creative expression, often via self-abandonment. Are tenacious and self-contained but not materialistic. Emotional sensitivity hidden behind a practical manner. Accent on creativity in home and garden. ...Artisans, poets.

From http://www.enneagramdimensions.net/articles%5Con_the_nature_of_subtypes.pdf

 

[Octavarium]

Firstly, just to quickly chime in on the MBTI stuff that's been discussed in this thread, I agree with [MENTION=7140]brainheart[/MENTION] that an introvert is an introvert and an extravert is an extravert. I use dichotomies more than functions, so it doesn't make sense from that POV to make a distinction between social extraversion and cognitive extraversion. But it doesn't even make sense if you're going by the functions, even if you want to go right back to Jung because, as brainheart said, Jung begins his explanation of the types by describing the differences between introverts and extraverts. So if someone's an extraverted intuitive (Ne-dom) the implication is that they're an extravert, in the usual sense of the word. Jung's extraverted intuitive type was basically a "subtype" of the extraverted type, rather like the Enneagram subtypes. So when [MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION] says:

Moreover, there would be ABSOLUTELY NOTHING other than type 4 that I could POSSIBLY be based on her work. Every word of it burned. I think anyone who's dealt with rejection and bad self-esteem would see themselves in her description, however....yet, examining my actual mindset, where my attention goes, and what my ego ideals and super-ego all tell me I SHOULD be, I am clearly not a core 4.

The same logic applies to the relationship between the functions and the I/E dichotomy. In other words, you can no more be an Ne-dom who's actually an introvert than you can be a self pres 4 who's actually a core 3 or a 5 or whatever.

Getting back to the actual topic of the thread, I find Chestnut's descriptions (I haven't read the book, so I'm going on what's been posted in this thread) quite one-sidedly negative. I'm not suggesting that anyone should pretend that people don't have issues, and I think type descriptions should be honest about the weaknesses of the types, but her description isn't as complete as it could be because she doesn't say much about the positives. Take that Sx 4 description, for example. When I read it, I get the impression they're people who have a victim mentality and anger management issues. But is that really what's at the core of their personality? What positives do they bring into the world? Honestly, when I read MBTI descriptions, even if I'm thinking "that's describing the kinds of people I always clash with", I can at least acknowledge that each type brings something valuable to society. But sometimes when I read Enneagram descriptions by people like Chestnut and Naranjo, I find myself thinking, "the world would be better off without people like that". I mean this as a totally impersonal critique of the descriptions, and not an insult to anyone of any particular type. I'm not at all a "positive" person, but I have more faith in human nature than Naranjo and Chestnut seem to.

 

[brainheart]

Getting back to the actual topic of the thread, I find Chestnut's descriptions (I haven't read the book, so I'm going on what's been posted in this thread) quite one-sidedly negative. I'm not suggesting that anyone should pretend that people don't have issues, and I think type descriptions should be honest about the weaknesses of the types, but her description isn't as complete as it could be because she doesn't say much about the positives. Take that Sx 4 description, for example. When I read it, I get the impression they're people who have a victim mentality and anger management issues. But is that really what's at the core of their personality? What positives do they bring into the world? Honestly, when I read MBTI descriptions, even if I'm thinking "that's describing the kinds of people I always clash with", I can at least acknowledge that each type brings something valuable to society. But sometimes when I read Enneagram descriptions by people like Chestnut and Naranjo, I find myself thinking, "the world would be better off without people like that". I mean this as a totally impersonal critique of the descriptions, and not an insult to anyone of any particular type. I'm not at all a "positive" person, but I have more faith in human nature than Naranjo and Chestnut seem to.

In the core type section she does go into the positives of the core four, so there is that- even if it isn't much.

I do agree, however, that her and Naranjo's descriptions give an unbalanced picture. It's typically the type at it's worst, and it seems like the sexual four is one of the most negative descriptions of all the subtypes (the ones are pretty awful too). Ironically, the advice she gives to fours to help them get out of the four trap is to focus on their strengths, so you'd think there'd be some more focus on that.

Have you ever read The Positive Enneagram by Susan Rhodes? She too got tired of the negative spin on personality so emphasizes the strengths. Interestingly, she types herself as a four so apparently she followed the same course as Chestnut's advice. She also has a book called Archetypes of the Enneagram which is about the 27 subtypes. I haven't read it but I would like to. (The last post with the other self pres description is from her website). I believe her list of films related to the themes of the subtypes is from the book. The themes tend to focus on the strengths of the types (although are some of the weaknesses). http://www.enneagramdimensions.net/articles/subtype_themes.pdf#start

 

[Sniffles]

http://www.enneagramdimensions.net/articles/subtype_themes.pdf#start

That's a pretty good list, showing actual examples of different themes in the subtypes. That's one thing irritating about many type descriptions is that they don't provide actual examples to help illustrate what is meant, or to help differentiate types better. I must say I have not watched most of the Sp 4 films mentioned*, but I can certainly relate completely to the themes mentioned.

*Seems most of the films I watch are in the 1,6,8 categories. *shrugs*

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

The same logic applies to the relationship between the functions and the I/E dichotomy. In other words, you can no more be an Ne-dom who's actually an introvert than you can be a self pres 4 who's actually a core 3 or a 5 or whatever.

Well, just call me the ISTP soc/sp 4 then!

Getting back to the actual topic of the thread, I find Chestnut's descriptions (I haven't read the book, so I'm going on what's been posted in this thread) quite one-sidedly negative. I'm not suggesting that anyone should pretend that people don't have issues, and I think type descriptions should be honest about the weaknesses of the types, but her description isn't as complete as it could be because she doesn't say much about the positives. Take that Sx 4 description, for example. When I read it, I get the impression they're people who have a victim mentality and anger management issues. But is that really what's at the core of their personality? What positives do they bring into the world? Honestly, when I read MBTI descriptions, even if I'm thinking "that's describing the kinds of people I always clash with", I can at least acknowledge that each type brings something valuable to society. But sometimes when I read Enneagram descriptions by people like Chestnut and Naranjo, I find myself thinking, "the world would be better off without people like that". I mean this as a totally impersonal critique of the descriptions, and not an insult to anyone of any particular type. I'm not at all a "positive" person, but I have more faith in human nature than Naranjo and Chestnut seem to.

Have you read Helen Palmer's stuff? I really like her work because she describes where your mind is and where your attention goes rather than writing specifically about the "problems" of each type, per se. (Worth noting that it wasn't until I became extremely unhealthy I could see myself in Naranjo's stuff at all).