[SP] Top 5 enneatype + wing types for SPs

[ICUP]

it's okay, I agree with you

I think it's a situation of: there has been alot of research on the subject. I also have a book here, "What Type Am I?" by Renee Baron, which claims that 5 is the most common enneagram type for ISTP, with 6 and 1 being less common. I personally think 5 fits ISTP quite well. I am action-oriented, at the same time, I spend most of my time doing things that would be considered non-active. I am not and have never been very physically-active. I share ALOT in common with 5's, as in, the way I get rid of fear is through knowledge. One of the reasons I came to mbti is because of my fears of people, and knowledge of mbti seems to rid me of the fear. In fact, when I test, I test as a 5.

You seem to want to say that such an animal cannot exist, when apparently, it does, and often enough. I know people with enneagram types that supposedly occur less-frequently, like estj 7's and istj 9's. They just have conflicting interests within the same person, and it manifests itself in an interesting way.

(In the estj's case, it's just a more rigid, law-bringing guy who likes getting massages and having parties, and hanging with friends. Actually, a good combination, because when you attend one of his parties, you know that you will be safe, no matter how much you drink.)

 

[Elfboy]

I think it's a situation of: there has been alot of research on the subject. I also have a book here, "What Type Am I?" by Renee Baron, which claims that 5 is the most common enneagram type for ISTP, with 6 and 1 being less common. I personally think 5 fits ISTP quite well. I am action-oriented, at the same time, I spend most of my time doing things that would be considered non-active. I am not and have never been very physically-active. I share ALOT in common with 5's, as in, the way I get rid of fear is through knowledge. One of the reasons I came to mbti is because of my fears of people, and knowledge of mbti seems to rid me of the fear. In fact, when I test, I test as a 5.

You seem to want to say that such an animal cannot exist, when apparently, it does, and often enough. I know people with enneagram types that supposedly occur less-frequently, like estj 7's and istj 9's.

I'm simply saying I don't think it's extremely common. I also think *ISTP 8s are much more common than ISTP 1s (I really have a hard time picturing a Perceiver type being prevalent among 1s except for maybe INFP) on the other hand, I can see a lot of ISTPs being 8s

*Edit: ISTP 8s

 

[Jaguar]

Not quite sure what you are talking about here, Jag, but I'm just sayin ISTPs aren't as likely to be 5's

You are not an ISTP, nor is Elfboy. If you don't want to know what ISTPs report as, I'm not sure why you're in this thread. Personal opinions and "guesses" are irrelevant. What matters is what ISTPs actually are. Are they only 5's? No. They've reported as 3, 6, 7 and 9 as well. There's also a chance that some of those who report as a T at the time, are actually an F. Or their I could be an E. One has to consider the variables. There are many enneagram diagrams circulating the net. I merely posted one. In that particular diagram, it should be obvious what the 5's have in common. IT.


Furthermore, the enneagram types for ISTPs have been discussed many times in this forum, and others, such as INTPc and INTJf over the years. There are also Enneagram forums. As far as this forum is concerned, we have an Advanced Search Function for a reason - to find prior discussions on topics, just like this one.

Use it:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/search.php

Here are 2 to get you started:

ISTPs enneagram:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/22608-istps-enneagram.html

Most likely Enneagram types for ISTP?
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/26981-most-likely-enneagram-types-istp.html

I'll repeat what I said before, it is common knowledge ISTPs report as 5's.
You may not be interested in what is true, but other members are.

 

[ICUP]

I'm simply saying I don't think it's extremely common. I also think ISTPs are much more common than ISTP 1s (I really have a hard time picturing a Perceiver type being prevalent among 1s except for maybe INFP) on the other hand, I can see a lot of ISTPs being 8s

I doubt your opinion is more valid than all of the people who are writing books and doing research, out there.

At the end of the day, it seems by most data that istp's represent in many of the enneagram types, with 5 being simply the most-common one seen. INTP, however, seems to occur mostly with a 5 enneagram. So, for example, while there may be 3-5 out of 10 istp 5's, there are 10 out of 10 intp 5's. Yet, 5 is reported as being seen most-commonly with both types, because it is.

 

[Glycerine]

5s are typically associated with introverted thinkers.....

 

[jixmixfix]

yes, but not liking to theorize would make one much less likely to be a 5. I'm sure there are a fair amount of ISTP 5s, but I don't think it's one of the more common types, they just come across as much more pragmatic than 5s (that aren't substantially integrated to 8)

I disagree from what I understand about the 5's is that they are very much like 8's except more competitive with themselves then with others. I'm pretty sure I'm a 5 and I get really addicted to learning new skills, which is very much a 5 trait. Notice in the 5 description it says "new knowledge and skills" yes a skill is something that requires more than just thinking. I've never seen an ISTP 3.Introverted thinking doms all very much live inside their own head.

 

[jixmixfix]

I usually agree with all your posts, K, but I'd have to disagree here. I don't see most ISTPs having that kind of patience or interest to devote to in depth analysis of something, to find "ALL" the evidence.

This is very very untrue, quite the opposite If anything INTPs are the ones who don't care much about the little details. When I want to learn a skill I look at every single possible angel even if it takes seeing the bigger picture.I think ISTPs are much more "nitpicky" than INTPs. Every watch James bond when he says "shaken not stirred" that's kind of how we are. Your view is pretty narrow there.

 

[KDude]

This is very very untrue, quite the opposite If anything INTPs are the ones who don't care much about the little details. When I want to learn a skill I look at every single possible angel even if it takes seeing the bigger picture.I think ISTPs are much more "nitpicky" than INTPs. Every watch James bond when he says "shaken not stirred" that's kind of how we are. Your view is pretty narrow there.

I wonder if it's the type of details involved. Because I notice when presenting an idea, INTPs will cover a lot of bases. Like if it's a matter of intellectual integrity or something, they're kind of known for whole walls-o-text, covering a lot of paremeters. On a day-to-day basis though, I think it'd be different.

 

[ICUP]

Yea, the INTP that works with my S.O. sends walls 'o text like mad, that are unbelievable. He's more complicated than I am. When he is writing a program, he will cover everything that could ever possibly happen, up, down, and sideways. He includes many things within his programs that are more complicated than needed, and unnecessary. We are detail-oriented, but in a more practical way. For the purposes of writing code, my S.O. thinks others are better writers, because he is constantly making his programs do more than they need to, and my S.O. has to always tell him to stop writing more. He turns a very simple task into rocket science. And then sometimes when there are bugs, he is in trouble because he can't remember what he did, it's so complicated, and he can't fix it......

 

[jixmixfix]

I wonder if it's the type of details involved. Because I notice when presenting an idea, INTPs will cover a lot of bases. Like if it's a matter of intellectual integrity or something, they're kind of known for whole walls-o-text, covering a lot of paremeters. On a day-to-day basis though, I think it'd be different.

the way I see it INTPs are more vicarious and less involved they can see the bigger picture and get into certain details and ideas without getting into the activity. ISTPs need to be inside the activity to see the details they are much more involved. So when I'm involved I see all the details. It's the argument of what actually is as oppose to what "theoretically" is. I can see a type 5 defiantly being IXTP in my opinion any Ti dom is no doubt a strong candidate for type 5. I remember last week I was pumping gas and I can't stand when the pump just stops at full, so I tend to push the pump even when it's stopping. I kept pushing and pushing the pump because I knew my tank would fill up more gas and that its actually not completely full. For the most part I get a few more leters of gas in my tank by doing this, however I filled it so much that time the gas just burst out of my tank and I was like shit. Theoretically the gas tank was full when the pump stopped however in actuality the tank did have some more room to take more gas in. This is similar to how S and N minds work, one prefers the theoretical while the other prefers the actual. In order to get the world of the "actual" you need to be more involved physically. I guess "details" is kind of a shallow way to describe it.

 

[lauranna]

I tested as 9w8. sx/sp So there's a whole new perspective on the matter.

I'm not sure any of the enneagram types fit me really well. Whereas with MBTI I relate to pretty much all descriptions of ISTP really well.

As far as enneagram goes, I don't know, I see a lot of nine, some eight, some seven, some five, some three. Who knows.

 

[Giggly]

the way I see it INTPs are more vicarious and less involved they can see the bigger picture and get into certain details and ideas without getting into the activity. ISTPs need to be inside the activity to see the details they are much more involved. So when I'm involved I see all the details. It's the argument of what actually is as oppose to what "theoretically" is. I can see a type 5 defiantly being IXTP in my opinion any Ti dom is no doubt a strong candidate for type 5. I remember last week I was pumping gas and I can't stand when the pump just stops at full, so I tend to push the pump even when it's stopping. I kept pushing and pushing the pump because I knew my tank would fill up more gas and that its actually not completely full. For the most part I get a few more leters of gas in my tank by doing this, however I filled it so much that time the gas just burst out of my tank and I was like shit. Theoretically the gas tank was full when the pump stopped however in actuality the tank did have some more room to take more gas in. This is similar to how S and N minds work, one prefers the theoretical while the other prefers the actual. In order to get the world of the "actual" you need to be more involved physically. I guess "details" is kind of a shallow way to describe it.

Yes.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

This is very very untrue, quite the opposite If anything INTPs are the ones who don't care much about the little details. When I want to learn a skill I look at every single possible angel even if it takes seeing the bigger picture.I think ISTPs are much more "nitpicky" than INTPs. Every watch James bond when he says "shaken not stirred" that's kind of how we are. Your view is pretty narrow there.

I don't know much about INTPs, but I do know ISTPs.

the way I see it INTPs are more vicarious and less involved they can see the bigger picture and get into certain details and ideas without getting into the activity. ISTPs need to be inside the activity to see the details they are much more involved. So when I'm involved I see all the details. It's the argument of what actually is as oppose to what "theoretically" is. I can see a type 5 defiantly being IXTP in my opinion any Ti dom is no doubt a strong candidate for type 5. I remember last week I was pumping gas and I can't stand when the pump just stops at full, so I tend to push the pump even when it's stopping. I kept pushing and pushing the pump because I knew my tank would fill up more gas and that its actually not completely full. For the most part I get a few more leters of gas in my tank by doing this, however I filled it so much that time the gas just burst out of my tank and I was like shit. Theoretically the gas tank was full when the pump stopped however in actuality the tank did have some more room to take more gas in. This is similar to how S and N minds work, one prefers the theoretical while the other prefers the actual. In order to get the world of the "actual" you need to be more involved physically. I guess "details" is kind of a shallow way to describe it.

Yeah, I don't know much about enneagram admittedly, but I think 5 sometimes might be a little too deep for how some ISTPs function. I see ISTPs as just wanting the end results, and however that can be accomplished most successfully, is what they will do, not really desiring to go to the depths of theory at all, but staying more in the real world to get the job done. It's almost like they are so proficient with Ti that they don't need to delve any deeper than that, and their Se tethers them in the real world prohibiting it (unless they get stuck in some Ti/Si or Ti/Ni loop of course). I guess that's why I feel like they lean more toward the body center of enneagram.

 

[Randomnity]

but the nature of 5 is that they are caught up in their heads because they fear the real world. ISTPs are grounded. most of them are very intelligent and analytical, but not in an academic way like a 5. analyzation and action are connected for an ISTP (a rare combination which can make them brutally effective) not so for most 5s. analyzation is for it's own sake is the motivation of a 5

I usually agree with all your posts, K, but I'd have to disagree here. I don't see most ISTPs having that kind of patience or interest to devote to in depth analysis of something, to find "ALL" the evidence. A few pieces to point in the right direction is all it takes. What works is usually good enough. Finding all the myriad tendrils and fleshing them out is Ne, and might be used by an ISTP, but only is he is gifted with righteous amounts of Ne for some reason.

2 things -

1) Why are an ENFP and an INFJ more likely to be right about what ISTPs are like than ISTPs ourselves?

2) Why on earth is it hard to imagine that a Ti dom would be prone to detaching and overanalyzing everything? It boggles the mind....

I think you guys either have a very warped idea of what a 5 is, or a very warped idea of what an ISTP is. I actually suspect both are the case.

 

[King sns]

2 things -

1) Why are an ENFP and an INFJ more likely to be right about what ISTPs are like than ISTPs ourselves?

2) Why on earth is it hard to imagine that a Ti dom would be prone to detaching and overanalyzing everything? It boggles the mind....

I think you guys either have a very warped idea of what a 5 is, or a very warped idea of what an ISTP is. I actually suspect both are the case.

Oh come on Random! You're all just counterphobic 6w7's prone to STD's and overdosing.

 

[jixmixfix]

I don't know much about INTPs, but I do know ISTPs.



I see ISTPs as just wanting the end results, and however that can be accomplished most successfully, is what they will do, not really desiring to go to the depths of theory at all, but staying more in the real world to get the job done. It's almost like they are so proficient with Ti that they don't need to delve any deeper than that, and their Se tethers them in the real world prohibiting it (unless they get stuck in some Ti/Si or Ti/Ni loop of course). I guess that's why I feel like they lean more toward the body center of enneagram.

I think you have a narrow view concerning the S and N world I agree that an S type would want to get the ends result but with the ends comes the means as well. For an ISTP type they would probably want to learn theory to achieve some kind of practical or visible end result while an N type would learn thoery for the sake of "theory" however both types are still learning theory in the process. The essence of a type 5 is to become more competent not necessarily to indulge in theory. If theory is something that makes a type 5 more competent than theory is merely a useful tool to achieve competence.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

2 things -

1) Why are an ENFP and an INFJ more likely to be right about what ISTPs are like than ISTPs ourselves?

2) Why on earth is it hard to imagine that a Ti dom would be prone to detaching and overanalyzing everything? It boggles the mind....

I think you guys either have a very warped idea of what a 5 is, or a very warped idea of what an ISTP is. I actually suspect both are the case.

ISTPs can be 5's. Just saying (if you read further along in the thread) it's a different flavor than and N 5. That's all. And I still assert most ISTPs are more likely another enneagram type. Maybe a Type C poll is in order?



I'd agree with you on your 2nd thing, but my ISTP was thoroughly normal and not warped at all. So, if anything I know normal ISTP, not warped ISTP.






EDIT: If a Type C poll shows most ISTPs to be enneagram type 5, I will capitulate graciously.

 

[Randomnity]

ISTPs can be 5's. Just saying (if you read further along in the thread) it's a different flavor than and N 5. That's all. And I still assert most ISTPs are more likely another enneagram type. Maybe a Type C poll is in order?


I'd agree with you on your 2nd thing, but my ISTP was thoroughly normal and not warped at all. So, if anything I know normal ISTP, not warped ISTP.

Okay, you know one normal ISTP pretty well. Great. I know one normal ISTP pretty well, too. 5 seemingly "normal" ISTPs have posted and not one agrees that 5 is an unusual enneagram for an ISTP. I'm not a statistician, but I'm pretty sure 5>1. And that's not counting any experience we have with other ISTPs.

I did read the thread. The two of you assert that 5 is an uncommon enneatype for ISTPs because we aren't "deep" enough. I'm telling you that A) we are more analytical than you think, even if it's not as obvious to an observer as an INTP is and B) 5s may include a subset of ivory tower string theory dead-to-the-world brain-in-a-box people, sure, but you don't have to be anywhere near that extreme to be a 5! 5s are essentially just people who think too much, and ISTPs can definitely fall into that category, even if the one ISTP you know doesn't. Not every ISTP is a 5, and it sounds like your ex wasn't, but it's hardly an unexpected enneatype for a Ti dom....

edit: I'm 6w5 if it matters. From my understanding, 6 is one of the most common types for people in general, regardless of MBTI type. So given that, I'd guess that ISTPs would be most likely to be 5, 6 or 7. (and probably with 6 wings if a 5 or 7)

 

[King sns]

There is a thread out there on common enneatypes for MBTI complete with graphs. I don't think 5 is too uncommon if I remember right.

 

[King sns]

here it is!

http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/enneagram/49982-enneagram-mbti-type-correlation.html