• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Enneatype me, Go.

Enneatype of Alea_iacta_est

  • 1w9

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • 1w2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2w1 (You're an idiot)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2w3 (You're an idiot)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3w2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3w4

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • 4w3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4w5

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • 5w4

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • 5w6

    Votes: 3 33.3%
  • 6w5

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • 6w7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7w6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 7w8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8w7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8w9

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9w8

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9w1

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Well you're not an idiot, so that rules out enneagram 2. Haha.

I'm interested in why you chose E8,5, and 1 in the past. Maybe we can plot out a pattern between them, and since they're all of the same system, we can arrive at a conclusion with less uncertainty.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Well you're not an idiot, so that rules out enneagram 2. Haha.

I'm interested in why you chose E8,5, and 1 in the past. Maybe we can plot out a pattern between them, and since they're all of the same system, we can arrive at a conclusion with less uncertainty.

I typed at 8 due to the fact that I thought I was too extroverted to be a 5 (I was wrong), and shared the worldview that the world is survival of the fittest and that vengeance is holy. 8-5 line seemed reasonable.

Mal's explanation for 1 seemed to fit rather well, so I'm interested how many people will vote 1w9. For some reason, however, I think 9w1 would be a better fit than that.

5, of course, is the easiest. I always test as it in every single enneagram test, and I fit with it rather well. 5's integration to 8 aligns quite nicely.

But of course, the majority vote shall determine it. Or the strongest argument.

(Also, the 'You're an Idiot' refers to anyone who would think about clicking it, I didn't think it would be interpreted as the poll-taker calling me an idiot, lol)
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
I typed at 8 due to the fact that I thought I was too extroverted to be a 5 (I was wrong), and shared the worldview that the world is survival of the fittest and that vengeance is holy. 8-5 line seemed reasonable.

Mal's explanation for 1 seemed to fit rather well, so I'm interested how many people will vote 1w9. For some reason, however, I think 9w1 would be a better fit than that.

5, of course, is the easiest. I always test as it in every single enneagram test, and I fit with it rather well. 5's integration to 8 aligns quite nicely.

But of course, the majority vote shall determine it. Or the strongest argument.

(Also, the 'You're an Idiot' refers to anyone who would think about clicking it, I didn't think it would be interpreted as the poll-taker calling me an idiot, lol)

So I'm gathering that you're somewhere between introversion and ambiversion, but more introverted nonetheless. Veering into 4,5,9 territory. Your tritype would heavily correspond...

I said your vocabulary is full of "should"s because it seems like you've wanted to devise "omni-theories" that include elements from most of the systems we use here. So you have a level of dissatisfaction with them - or at least the way their implemented. Maybe this ties into your lack of certainty about your own type. But that's neither here nor there.

On one hand, the desire to reform the theory - or how we look at it - seems 1-ish, but it's only truly 1-ish if you feel an almost self-evident sense of what is right and good. On the other, it seems 5-ish in the sense that it's iconoclastic. 5s act out a small "revolt" against conventional ways of thinking, developing new theories defined by the context of the convention and their own reasoning. In a way, I heavily associate 5s, and 4s for that matter, with the subconscious - they're driven by thoughts and feelings that are so uniquely anterior. So anterior, so native, in fact, that they easily distance themselves from those starting points. They may make a game out of their thoughts and feelings because they have a sense that, as adept as they are with them, they would have nothing to lose by openly toying around with them.

I don't see that kind of playfulness in you. Maybe I simply don't know you well enough, but it's led me to feel you're more of a 1. The playfulness of a 1 tends to revolve around the absurdity of something so "wrong" that it's obviously not even intended to be "right". Would you say this is true for you? The whole "survival of the fittest" inclination leans more toward the head-fix or the gut-fix than it does the heart-fix, IMO. Though, frankly, even though I am a 4, I once partially defined myself by Darwinist biases to distance myself from dependency on others.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
So I'm gathering that you're somewhere between introversion and ambiversion, but more introverted nonetheless. Veering into 4,5,9 territory. Your tritype would heavily correspond...

I said your vocabulary is full of "should"s because it seems like you've wanted to devise "omni-theories" that include elements from most of the systems we use here. So you have a level of dissatisfaction with them - or at least the way their implemented. Maybe this ties into your lack of certainty about your own type. But that's neither here nor there.

On one hand, the desire to reform the theory - or how we look at it - seems 1-ish, but it's only truly 1-ish if you feel an almost self-evident sense of what is right and good. On the other, it seems 5-ish in the sense that it's iconoclastic. 5s act out a small "revolt" against conventional ways of thinking, developing new theories defined by the context of the convention and their own reasoning. In a way, I heavily associate 5s, and 4s for that matter, with the subconscious - they're driven by thoughts and feelings that are so uniquely anterior. So anterior, so native, in fact, that they easily distance themselves from those starting points. They may make a game out of their thoughts and feelings because they have a sense that, as adept as they are with them, they would have nothing to lose by openly toying around with them.

I don't see that kind of playfulness in you. Maybe I simply don't know you well enough, but it's led me to feel you're more of a 1. The playfulness of a 1 tends to revolve around the absurdity of something so "wrong" that it's obviously not even intended to be "right". Would you say this is true for you? The whole "survival of the fittest" inclination leans more toward the head-fix or the gut-fix than it does the heart-fix, IMO. Though, frankly, even though I am a 4, I once partially defined myself by Darwinist biases to distance myself from dependency on others.

Interesting. I guess my playfulness does sort of revolve around moral absurdity. Makes me seem stupid for typing as a 7 before though, if I do really appear absent of playfulness. My friends would definitely say that my sense of humor revolves around the morally absurd. One of my good friends actually believed I was extremely racist based on some of the jokes I have made before, but I'm not, I simply know what's wrong and how to make it so wrong that it is humorous.

I'm almost certain that I have both the 5 and 1 fix now, and I'm more inclined to say 5 may be ahead from 1 simply because I'm not one for mobilizing into action often, and am extraordinarily lazy and unorganized for the most part (I call it anarchic organization). Though the iconoclastic rebellion seems more in line with me as well.

My omni-theories are simply my personal view of the grand design that can be created from weaving systems, with heavy emphasis on the combination of the Beebe Model, Jungian Cognitive Functions, and Socionics into one beautiful pattern that can be so generalized as to be easily applicable to the whole population without specifying and convuluting function definitions. I guess it is 'cause' like in a 1-ish way, in that I am entirely confident that the pattern is perfect, but it would also be 5 like due to my disregard for conventional notions about type.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
ENTJ 6w5
LIE-Ni

I'm probably not so or sx lead, and I'm pretty sure I'm neither a Prussian nor Counter-phobic 6. I'm definitely not a Phobic 6.

Also, I'm an irrational type, that much is set in stone. I am much too engrossed in my inner world to be Te leading, I prefer the expression of my inner mechanics through creative Te, the implementation of my inner ideas and dynamic pattern assessment in external systems to redesign them and manipulate them.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
Interesting. I guess my playfulness does sort of revolve around moral absurdity. Makes me seem stupid for typing as a 7 before though, if I do really appear absent of playfulness. My friends would definitely say that my sense of humor revolves around the morally absurd. One of my good friends actually believed I was extremely racist based on some of the jokes I have made before, but I'm not, I simply know what's wrong and how to make it so wrong that it is humorous.

I'm almost certain that I have both the 5 and 1 fix now, and I'm more inclined to say 5 may be ahead from 1 simply because I'm not one for mobilizing into action often, and am extraordinarily lazy and unorganized for the most part (I call it anarchic organization). Though the iconoclastic rebellion seems more in line with me as well.

My omni-theories are simply my personal view of the grand design that can be created from weaving systems, with heavy emphasis on the combination of the Beebe Model, Jungian Cognitive Functions, and Socionics into one beautiful pattern that can be so generalized as to be easily applicable to the whole population without specifying and convuluting function definitions. I guess it is 'cause' like in a 1-ish way, in that I am entirely confident that the pattern is perfect, but it would also be 5 like due to my disregard for conventional notions about type.

I'm starting to lean toward 5 as well, but for reasons that may not necessarily rule out 6. What do you think about 6?

EDIT: No need to answer now that you've responded to Evee's post.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
I'm starting to lean toward 5 as well, but for reasons that may not necessarily rule out 6. What do you think about 6?

I wouldn't consider myself a Phobic 6 at all. Too fearless/unworried. I wouldn't consider myself a Counter-phobic 6 either. Too careful/self-preservatory. I might buy Prussian, but I really don't think I'm so first.

I'm not really fearful at all, I'm simply aware of the dangers and know how to steer clear of them. The only paranoia I can really say I have is interpersonal, but even then I really don't care excepting the selective few who act abnormally.
 
N

ndovjtjcaqidthi

Guest
I wouldn't consider myself a Counter-phobic 6 either. Too careful/self-preservatory.

I'm extremely "careful" and I used to type as Sp first, and if people didn't know better by talking to me personally, they wouldn't suspect that I'm actually Sx first. It's possible to have instinctual variants be so equal in strength that it's hard to tell which is leading.

I also used to type as 4w5 and still relate to 100% of it, but alas, I am not a 4 core. (I don't even know where you're coming from typing yourself as a 4 core, aha) Do you have any idea how many sixes on this forum have mistyped themselves as 4w5?

I'm not really fearful at all, I'm simply aware of the dangers and know how to steer clear of them.

Sixes are hyper-aware of dangers and how to steer clear of them.

The only paranoia I can really say I have is interpersonal, but even then I really don't care excepting the selective few who act abnormally.

So, you have paranoia about relationships with people? As in trust?
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
So? I'm extremely "careful" and I used to type as Sp first, and if people didn't know better by talking to me personally, they wouldn't suspect that I'm actually Sx first. It's possible to have instinctual variants be so equal in strength that it's hard to tell which is leading.



Sixes are hyper-aware of dangers and how to steer clear of them.



So, you have paranoia about relationships with people? As in trust?

Not as in trust, what I have stated is explainable through Gainan's Victim (sub Pseudo-Aggressor) romantic style, indicative of the ENTj, INTp, INFp, ENFj (Ni ego). 'Selective few' was a very vague metonym for people I am attracted to. I don't really care about trust in the first place, to be honest.

I'm not hyper-aware of dangers, I simply notice some important, rational dangers while completely disregarding others. I identified with the dauntless 4 before due to the inclusion of always skidding by the skin of their teeth when it came to risk-taking. Completely unprepared but successful.

I'm also not the kind of person to 'fight my own fears' at all, rather choosing to avoid any fear-provoking stimuli (which is rare).
 

Haven

Blind Guardian
Joined
Apr 26, 2011
Messages
1,075
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Enneagram
2w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I wouldn't consider myself a Phobic 6 at all. Too fearless/unworried. I wouldn't consider myself a Counter-phobic 6 either. Too careful/self-preservatory. I might buy Prussian, but I really don't think I'm so first.

I'm not really fearful at all, I'm simply aware of the dangers and know how to steer clear of them. The only paranoia I can really say I have is interpersonal, but even then I really don't care excepting the selective few who act abnormally.

Fear/anxiety affects both 5 and 6 the most. What's your interpersonal paranoia about?
 
N

ndovjtjcaqidthi

Guest
Not as in trust, what I have stated is explainable through Gainan's Victim (sub Pseudo-Aggressor) romantic style, indicative of the ENTj, INTp, INFp, ENFj (Ni ego). 'Selective few' was a very vague metonym for people I am attracted to. I don't really care about trust in the first place, to be honest.

I'm not hyper-aware of dangers, I simply notice some important, rational dangers while completely disregarding others. I identified with the dauntless 4 before due to the inclusion of always skidding by the skin of their teeth when it came to risk-taking. Completely unprepared but successful.

I'm also not the kind of person to 'fight my own fears' at all, rather choosing to avoid any fear-provoking stimuli (which is rare).

Hmm, well carry on then, aha.

I was really only providing alternatives, since I was tagged in the thread, and E five is too obvious and well.. E four doesn't exactly sit right with me as your core type, and there must be a reason why you have favored it over E five.

You seem to know a lot about this, unless your ego is split somewhere I don't think it should be too hard for you to figure it out.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Fear/anxiety affects both 5 and 6 the most. What's your interpersonal paranoia about?

How friends, acquaintances, and those I'm attracted to view me, mostly. I have to consciously rationalize as to the second party's perspective of me.

I'm open to type 6, it's just that I'm really not paranoid in general nor am I fearful. The trust element is completely lacking from my understanding of its manifestation in the 6, as I don't really care about trust, and confide more in myself than those outside the ego. Realizing it now, however, I absolutely do not trust people with my emotions and I am not particularly trustworthy of other people's work either. Perhaps I am more 6-ish than I previously thought.

I guess I would be kind of 'phobic' of the human element, that my fate is in the hands of others or the work of others, that someone might have screwed up and that I would have to pay the consequences. This self-objective experience is rather enlightening.

Perhaps [MENTION=15318]Evee[/MENTION] is correct in his assessment.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
To be honest, I really have no idea :shrug:. For as long and as much as I have seen you around here, I know very little about you. Things you discuss usually remain intellectual and factual, and seldom (if ever) get personal to your inner workings. When those things are mentioned, it seems sort of off, having not seen much evidence from it. In essence, you're quite guarded and it's hard to get a gauge of things.

What I do know, is you are not a 2, 3, 6, or 7. From what I can gather those do not fit. The rest... well I am not sure? Sorry if I am of little help. Years back I used to think I was quite good at typing people, but I resign to the fact that I am not (at least, I don't see myself as good at it). I can get a good sense of what people are like, but I am poor at putting it to words for others to get.
 

Chad of the OttomanEmpire

Give me a fourth dot.
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
1,053
MBTI Type
NeTi
Enneagram
478
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I could still see you as an 8.

However, I am wondering what you think of being an sp/sx 3w4? You mentioned your low activity level, which would appear to rule it out, but I'm interested in your thoughts anyway.

Also, what are your thoughts on being a 5? I see you gathering lots of data and trying to come to some sort of "elegant solution" to understand humanity, which is reminiscent of the way 5s process. Especially when you add your anxiety regarding interacting interpersonally, I could easily see a case for it.
 

buddy2eyes

New member
Joined
Apr 25, 2014
Messages
14
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
8w7
Instinctual Variant
sp
I feel like some 1 put me a test he knows the answer already... LOL!
1 or 8 are suit to you man.
 
Top