[Type 4] Type 4 - What is it good for......

[Qlip]

It's actually angering to me to consider that people are for things, or that utility is a measure of a person.

 

[á´…eparted]

It's actually angering to me to consider that people are for things, or that utility is a measure of a person.

Why? It's not the entire picture of a person, but it's absolutely a factor.

 

[Qlip]

Why? It's not the entire picture of a person, but it's absolutely a factor.

Usage and practicality are all relative to a goal, a purpose, perhaps you can measure a particular human by their performance within a role that way in. But to say that people have objective value is to imply that there is a universal purpose, and that idea has caused a lot of trouble in the world.

 

[á´…eparted]

Usage and practicality are all relative to a goal, a purpose, perhaps you can measure a particular human by their performance within a role that way in. But to say that people have objective value is to imply that there is a universal purpose, and that idea has caused a lot of trouble in the world.

Well, it depends on how you define a goal, but that's not all that matters. We live in a modern world, and there are basic things that we have to do in order to function in it. Because of that, the ability to, and things people bring to better things within this framework, do bring value.

I don't think saying someone has objective value suggests universal purpose at all.

 

[Qlip]

Well, it depends on how you define a goal, but that's not all that matters. We live in a modern world, and there are basic things that we have to do in order to function in it. Because of that, the ability to, and things people bring to better things within this framework, do bring value.

I don't think saying someone has objective value suggests universal purpose at all.

Well, we don't all live in the modern world, do we? I would hazard to say most of us on this forum does, but we are such a small part of the world. The Western world isn't even the largest part of the world, although it certainly has made some waves. And there are so many different ways to live, even in the U.S..

Anyway, in response to the bolded, an apple is good if it is sweet for a kid, an apple is good if it's tart for a granny baking a pie. Who decides how a person is good?

 

[á´…eparted]

Well, we don't all live in the modern world, do we? I would hazard to say most of us on this forum does, but we are such a small part of the world. The Western world isn't even the largest part of the world, although it certainly has made some waves. And there are so many different ways to live, even in the U.S..

Anyway, in response to the bolded, an apple is good if it is sweet for a kid, an apple is good if it's tart for a granny baking a pie. Who decides how a person is good?

Even in non-modern society, there are practical things that we need to be able to do to survive: cook, clean, care for the young. Etc. Those people who have those practical skills give them value. Just as the artist who richens the world is given value for that. Just as the confidant who give intangible support to others is given value for that. There are countless things that give someone value. Tangible, or intangible. Could we measure that and say some people are better than others? Yes. Should we? No. There is almost no situations (barring life and death scenarios, and even then that's a mabye) that doing so would be good.

It's not a binary thing to decide if something is good or bad, there are endless factors that add up to mean something is good or bad overall. Even then, it can still also be taken case by case for an individual. Value is something that both has large bulk value, and individual value. Those things will always exist. They're just independent and taken into account when a situation would call for one or the other.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Well, it depends on how you define a goal, but that's not all that matters. We live in a modern world, and there are basic things that we have to do in order to function in it. Because of that, the ability to, and things people bring to better things within this framework, do bring value.

I don't think saying someone has objective value suggests universal purpose at all.

Being valued within a terribly flawed framework that has so many moral and ethical violations wouldn't be a huge source of pride for me.... To subvert it by not playing its game has a nobility, IMO.

I do recall social 4s and 5s being described as critics of their society and culture, and that surely has value if it leads to positive changes. Obviously, various forms of art have done just that.

The problem is the measurable aspect, which is hard to apply to a type that is not often doing things which can be weighed with impersonal measures. So much is subjective, but many choose to share subjective standards for the sake of competition to bolster their ego.

 

[Qlip]

Even in non-modern society, there are practical things that we need to be able to do to survive: cook, clean, care for the young. Etc. Those people who have those practical skills give them value. Just as the artist who richens the world is given value for that. Just as the confidant who give intangible support to others is given value for that. There are countless things that give someone value. Tangible, or intangible. Could we measure that and say some people are better than others? Yes. Should we? No. There is almost no situations (barring life and death scenarios, and even then that's a mabye) that doing so would be good.

It's not a binary thing to decide if something is good or bad, there are endless factors that add up to mean something is good or bad overall. Even then, it can still also be taken case by case for an individual. Value is something that both has large bulk value, and individual value. Those things will always exist. They're just independent and taken into account when a situation would call for one or the other.

Hah, your Fe is showing.

You are basically saying that people have objective value when within a subjective situation, this is the same as how I mentioned that value can only be judged against a goal. I don't feel this is what is meant by objective, but it does mean that we are in agreement.

So, as a thought experiment, let's take a person and change his value. Being that a person's value can be decided by their surroundings, that person could modify their value by changing his/her surroundings, correct? Also a person could change their value by improving a skill.

What if value was decided internally, by how a person feels about themselves, regardless of the 'goal'? What if a person feels quite valuable? What if they think less of themselves? What is indicative of their value, their own valuation or their surroundings, both of which are not really objective? I'll offer that this entirely depends on the person, whether they're the type to value the internal or the external, but this is also subjective to themselves.

I do think that there is a kind of objective goal, a general will to survive and function, as an individual and as a culture. But this is just somewhat statistically universal, not actually.

 

[á´…eparted]

Being valued within a terribly flawed framework that has so many moral and ethical violations wouldn't be a huge source of pride for me.... To subvert it by not playing its game has a nobility, IMO.

I do recall social 4s and 5s being described as critics of their society and culture, and that surely has value if it leads to positive changes. Obviously, various forms of art have done just that.

The problem is the measurable aspect, which is hard to apply to a type that is not often doing things which can be weighed with impersonal measures. So much is subjective, but many choose to share subjective standards for the sake of competition to bolster their ego.

See my post above yours for a bit more clarification.

I admit this is rather alien territory for me as this is quite counter to how I operate. I definitely derive a large portion of my value based off how I relate to, function, and contribute to society as I live in it. I didn't chose to be born in the life that I have, but it is what I have. To me it's just flat irrational to buck the system, something that I could never, ever change, and refuse to mold to it. I understand for 4's in particular this would cause quite the indigestion at even considering it. Further, I would not devalue someone for bucking it (within reason, but going further on this would become a very tangential discussion). Though I'd be lying if I said I was not very put off by people who play the "fuck the system! ...because it's the system!" game, and it's something I can not value.

The point is though, it's still a framework, and it still has value. It's pervasive enough that I think it's definitely fair to measure off of it. However, value can still be measured outside of that. Another way of putting it would be it could be possible for someone to have very little value to society as a whole, but have a ton of value to an individual on matters that don't effect society whatsoever. All told, they still have value.

A decent analogy would be temperature: Kelvin, Celsius, Fahrenheit. They all measure they same thing, just on different reference points.

 

[á´…eparted]

Hah, your Fe is showing.

You are basically saying that people have objective value when within a subjective situation, this is the same as how I mentioned that value can only be judged against a goal. I don't feel this is what is meant by objective, but it does mean that we are in agreement.

So, as a thought experiment, let's take a person and change his value. Being that a person's value can be decided by their surroundings, that person could modify their value by changing his/her surroundings, correct? Also a person could change their value by improving a skill.

What if value was decided internally, by how a person feels about themselves, regardless of the 'goal'? What if a person feels quite valuable? What if they think less of themselves? What is indicative of their value, their own valuation or their surroundings, both of which are not really objective? I'll offer that this entirely depends on the person, whether they're the type to value the internal or the external, but this is also subjective to themselves.

I do think that there is a kind of objective goal, a general will to survive and function, as an individual and as a culture. But this is just somewhat statistically universal, not actually.

I'm an Fe dom... not something I can exactly hide, even when I try .

I think we're mostly in agreement. Yet, honestly... I am have a really really really really reeeeeeealy hard time seeing someone to have value just because they "feel it" in themselves. It's extremely alien to me to preform such things without an external reference. I am almost completely unable to do it. I mean, I understand it and I know that people do that but. It feels just so deeply fundementally wrong to me. I totally know it's not, believe me. I just, it's something I am nearly completely unable to empathize with. Just kinda sorta know in theory. I could never derive my value internally. If I lose my external value I'd probably lose my will to live.

I just see value as something that is externally derived. Partially because I feel like everything can be exteralized and reasoned in some manner.

 

[OrangeAppled]

See my post above yours for a bit more clarification.

I admit this is rather alien territory for me as this is quite counter to how I operate. I definitely derive a large portion of my value based off how I relate to, function, and contribute to society as I live in it. I didn't chose to be born in the life that I have, but it is what I have. To me it's just flat irrational to buck the system, something that I could never, ever change, and refuse to mold to it. I understand for 4's in particular this would cause quite the indigestion at even considering it. Further, I would not devalue someone for bucking it (within reason, but going further on this would become a very tangential discussion). Though I'd be lying if I said I was not very put off by people who play the "fuck the system! ...because it's the system!" game, and it's something I can not value.

The point is though, it's still a framework, and it still has value. It's pervasive enough that I think it's definitely fair to measure off of it. However, value can still be measured outside of that. Another way of putting it would be it could be possible for someone to have very little value to society as a whole, but have a ton of value to an individual on matters that don't effect society whatsoever. All told, they still have value.

A decent analogy would be temperature: Kelvin, Celsius, Fahrenheit. They all measure they same thing, just on different reference points.

You are molding it if you buck it. You lead by example; people follow, and now you have a movement. Again, art has time and again been a tool for this.

I'm no revolutionary here and not politically inclined, but Naranjo theorized that many 4 women were probably part of the women's lib movement, and there is some indication that 4s would generally support movements for minority rights.

I'm not sure why you think it's bucking the system for being a system, it's bucking it for being unacceptably flawed. Being a rebel for its own sake is more cp 6ish, I thought.

However, I'd venture to say the average 4 is functional in the usual ways - working, cooking, cleaning, etc. But that's not what makes them feel "functional" because their sense of defectiveness doesn't lie in that. They may even be envious that others find satisfaction in such mundanity when they cannot. When you don't feel reward for certain so-called achievements, then motivation to pursue them further is definitely not high. The reward system in the existing framework is geared towards the utilitarian, unless you are very exceptional at your particular talent, and even then, the reward itself may not be desired. Practical skills are given higher social value in the average range, and the reward suits the mentality that tends to go with it. 4s are often seeking higher purpose, which is not what everyday tasks tend to bring to people.

That's why the profiles which describe healthy 4s as these brilliant and insightful creatives are a bit damaging, because they reinforce the 4 belief that they must be extraordinary to be happy and find meaning in life.

 

[ShereeB]

Writing, singing, and then commiting suicide after becoming world-famous

You could also get a gender studies degree and blame patriarchy whenever a privileged cis-hetero white male employer decides not to hire you

Choose wisely

Oh no, that way lay madness and gnashing of teeth, have been on that precipice far too many times.

 

[á´…eparted]

You are molding it if you buck it. You lead by example; people follow, and now you have a movement. Again, art has time and again been a tool for this.

I'm no revolutionary here and not politically inclined, but Naranjo theorized that many 4 women were probably part of the women's lib movement, and there is some indication that 4s would generally support movements for minority rights.

I'm not sure why you think it's bucking the system for being a system, it's bucking it for being unacceptably flawed. Being a rebel for its own sake is more cp 6ish, I thought.

However, I'd venture to say the average 4 is functional in the usual ways - working, cooking, cleaning, etc. But that's not what makes them feel "functional" because their sense of defectiveness doesn't lie in that. They may even be envious that others find satisfaction in such mundanity when they cannot. When you don't feel reward for certain so-called achievements, then motivation to pursue them further is definitely not high. The reward system in the existing framework is geared towards the utilitarian, unless you are very exceptional at your particular talent, and even then, the reward itself may not be desired. Practical skills are given higher social value in the average range, and the reward suits the mentality that tends to go with it. 4s are often seeking higher purpose, which is not what everyday tasks tend to bring to people.

That's why the profiles which describe healthy 4s as these brilliant and insightful creatives are a bit damaging, because they reinforce the 4 belief that they must be extraordinary to be happy and find meaning in life.

When I say it's futile, I am coming from the standpoint of changing it completely as idealized. That my fault: defaulting to absolution in my thinking. Small change sure that's definitely a noble and good thing to do for the most part. I'm not going to agree with every cause of course, but no one would. I surely never could do such a thing. At least with intent. When ever I buck the system it's usually an accident (incidentally I did it quite frequently when I was a child). Also, when I say bucking it for the sake of bucking it, I wasn't referring to any one type, just the concept of it in general. I agree it isn't usually a 4 thing. Though it can appear to be if they do it against something that is working fine.

I hear what you're saying though.

 

[Kullervo]

You are molding it if you buck it. You lead by example; people follow, and now you have a movement. Again, art has time and again been a tool for this.

I know this is an aside, but some artists can derive meaning from the sheer pleasure of creating a work. Art does not have to be a reaction against or an affirmation of the status quo. Your art is you. So I agree with [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] here, albeit for very different reasons.

I'm no revolutionary here and not politically inclined, but Naranjo theorized that many 4 women were probably part of the women's lib movement, and there is some indication that 4s would generally support movements for minority rights.

That stereotype certainly has some truth to it, at least if the behaviour of the forums' Fe-driven 4s is anything to go by, lol.

I'm not sure why you think it's bucking the system for being a system, it's bucking it for being unacceptably flawed. Being a rebel for its own sake is more cp 6ish, I thought.

4s feel a need to be different, while cp6s feel a need to be independent. So both might rebel against societal norms, but the motive of a cp6 is to break away from somebody/something in their lives. 4s by contrast can't bear the thought of being "ordinary" (something 6s rarely think about) and more aggressive ones will act this out.

However, I'd venture to say the average 4 is functional in the usual ways - working, cooking, cleaning, etc. But that's not what makes them feel "functional" because their sense of defectiveness doesn't lie in that. They may even be envious that others find satisfaction in such mundanity when they cannot. When you don't feel reward for certain so-called achievements, then motivation to pursue them further is definitely not high. The reward system in the existing framework is geared towards the utilitarian, unless you are very exceptional at your particular talent, and even then, the reward itself may not be desired. Practical skills are given higher social value in the average range, and the reward suits the mentality that tends to go with it. 4s are often seeking higher purpose, which is not what everyday tasks tend to bring to people.

That's why the profiles which describe healthy 4s as these brilliant and insightful creatives are a bit damaging, because they reinforce the 4 belief that they must be extraordinary to be happy and find meaning in life.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I know this is an aside, but some artists can derive meaning from the sheer pleasure of creating a work. Art does not have to be a reaction against or an affirmation of the status quo. Your art is you.

Who said it "has" to be that?
In the context of the conversation, this was about how 4s could impact an existing framework without directly seeking to change it. The intention for change may not even be there, but it can be a result, that is the point. The motive is not being discussed so much here, although some may have the motive to critique their culture (again, see social 4s and 5s). The boiled down motive for a 4 is generally to establish their personal signigicance, which is not the same as being different for its own sake.

4s feel a need to be different, while cp6s feel a need to be independent. So both might rebel against societal norms, but the motive of a cp6 is to break away from somebody/something in their lives. 4s by contrast can't bear the thought of being "ordinary" (something 6s rarely think about) and more aggressive ones will act this out.

Many 4s don't consciously need to be different. That's a huge oversimplification. Wanting to be different is very trite anyhow. The 4 tends to FEEL different. They believe they ARE different. Taking a "different" course in life or making "different" choices may feel like being true to oneself and acknowledging your nature and needs, not being different for the sake of it. Striving for indepedance is associated with many types; it may be more a matter of how and why.

The fixation of the 4 is not being unique or different - it's envy for what they perceive they are missing, and that comes down to the personal significance again, something they attribute as innate in others, but somehow missing or broken in themselves. Frustrated desire marks the 4 also - they are the depressive, masochistic type.

4s are hate feeling insignificant, and a quick way to establish a sense of mattering is to stand out, to take a different course, but that's a means to a desired end, not the desire in itself. Rebellion is often only the case when it appears something is in the way of their being authentic, aka, being able to reach their full potential as a human and become significant.

If you couldn't follow that, then maybe we should end it here. Goodnight.

 

[Southern Kross]

[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] the Fe mode of thought with regards to objective valuing is not necessarily incongruent with 4-ness - there are plenty of INFJ 4s out there. Perhaps they would be better at explaining how the two can be reconciled in a way that makes sense to you. We currently don't have enough in the discussion. Paging [MENTION=8244]Eilonwy[/MENTION], [MENTION=6971]21%[/MENTION] and [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]

Anyway your resistance to 4-ness is probably more to do with being a 1 and 4 being your disintergration point - it would seem like going backwards to you. Just go have a look online at the sort of vitriol 4s reserve for 2s to see the equivalent (spoiler: it's not pretty).

 

[KitchenFly]

Type four is good for living life, at point four we find a door way though breath, we breathe, we sense and feel our mind clear of thoughts manifesting stories and in doing so we breath and witness energy alining, moving in its natural expression as it rebalances toward an optimum a hole balance.

Point 4 helps us build Presence and through a sensible focus over a short period of weeks the self can experience the alchemy of experiential change.

If we resist creating storey's to match un conches energy flowing we allow energy to rebalance unto a higher synergy, point four is vital for the attainment of balance, the balancing of hart head gut, and allow mind to be its true expression free to witness free from pain free to express wisdom.

If this sounds so un four I would encourage the reader to explore; The Enneagram Of Letting Go. It can be found in the book wisdom of the enneagram.

Breath and Be is the key, be the witness and experience building a presence that will allow the mind to restore its natural chemical balance that is synonymous with real freedom and real connection. A vital alive mind dose not need to actualise though the exaggerated its is actualised though the balance of being authentically actualised though Presence and the sustained balancing of the three centre's.

 

[FemMecha]

[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] the Fe mode of thought with regards to objective valuing is not necessarily incongruent with 4-ness - there are plenty of INFJ 4s out there. Perhaps they would be better at explaining how the two can be reconciled in a way that makes sense to you. We currently don't have enough in the discussion. Paging [MENTION=8244]Eilonwy[/MENTION], [MENTION=6971]21%[/MENTION] and [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]...

I'll try to respond to this, although from my perspective Fi and Fe are not separate boxes (as I suspect most E4s would agree), but two points on a continuum. It is also a continuum that is by nature more individualized than perhaps any of the others, so when I speak "from a Fe perspective", I have no expectation that it applies broadly.

As an extremely introverted type that has "Fe", I find that it is important to me in my teaching to work one-on-one rather than in groups. There are too many signals in groups and you are required to continually create an average of the whole in your guidance. This goes against my nature. I'm more inspired to work with an individual, to really focus on their thought patterns, the way they use language, what they value, how they see the world, etc. It is unnatural for me to teach only normative, general information and to make the individual beholden to the rules of a tradition.

Instead I focus on teaching creativity and try to guide the student based on the way *they* think. It is like taking care of a variety of plants that each have different needs. I feel happy when a student feels ownership over what they create and express, and I don't want them to copy me, but to find themselves. To some extent I approach friendships and relationships the same way. I'm energized when people are given opportunity to reach their potential (if they want to), and it fascinates me when that potential is very different from my own.

I care deeply about authenticity for myself. I probably focus on that over uniqueness. If I authentically lack a certain degree of uniqueness, then I value the truth about myself over moving as far from the norm as possible. I've been pressured to be more normative and more unique over the years, and my response tends to reject any external pressure and to just figure out the truth about myself. I find I'm quietly atypical, so the majority of people never see it. Sometimes I even wonder if I'm neuro-atypical myself in some ways, but there isn't a classification I know of that fits it. I want to be true to self, but also left alone. I don't like to display too much uniqueness because then it draws attention and judgment. I don't trust people, and I just want to live quietly and true to myself and others.

 

[21%]

[MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] the Fe mode of thought with regards to objective valuing is not necessarily incongruent with 4-ness - there are plenty of INFJ 4s out there. Perhaps they would be better at explaining how the two can be reconciled in a way that makes sense to you. We currently don't have enough in the discussion. Paging [MENTION=8244]Eilonwy[/MENTION], [MENTION=6971]21%[/MENTION] and [MENTION=14857]fia[/MENTION]

This is a good question, and a very interesting one. I remember someone posting something about how it's not possible for Fe users to be E4. For me, the contrasting pulls from being Fe and E4 provide some pretty interesting dynamics in my internal world.

Let me start by saying that it's not about being unique -- at least not in the sense that I want to be unique and different, or that I want to stand out from the crowd. I think a 4's obsession with uniqueness isn't about being different, but more about feeling the self very acutely (as differentiated/separated from others). It's like you like to soak in your own existence. You feel and know what you're feeling, you drink in your own emotions and try to taste and savor it. And the awareness of this alone makes you 'unique' - in the sense that this is me, and I'm the one and only. It doesn't mean that other people aren't unique; 4s have no problems accepting the fact, but it's just not that important to them (being self-obsessed and all).

4s are in love with themselves. Actually, I believe every type is more or less the same, but 4s love everything about themselves -- the good, the bad, the flaws, the suffering. Everything is part of being me. 4s might be more comfortable expressing their quirks and other 'weird' traits, because they don't necessarily view them as something negative.

So, being Fe isn't incompatible with this. It's just that part of being 'me' can also incorporates Fe values. The only conflict I can see might be how Fe dictates the need to cater to others (or the 'group') while the 4-ness might want to cater to its own needs (self expression, which might conflict with what the group needs), and that might lead to a lot of internal turmoil. But it's definitely possible to find a solution that satisfies both.

Note: 'authenticity' might be pulled into this and some might view Fe as 'inauthentic', which conflicts with the 4's need to be 'authentic'. This is not exactly accurate. Fe doing Fe things is being authentic to itself. So that's not the problem. A 4 who uses Fe will have inherent Fe values as part of their being. So no conflict there.

Hope this makes sense

 

[hjgbujhghg]

Where is your special snowflake syndorme?