[Type 8] Are 8 and Fi similar?

[Moiety]

But meditation for me doesn't do anything really, except perhaps make me feel very relaxed---or irritated. Unless it's meditation involving an Se/Ti activity, as I get with knitting, then it can be very meditative and conscience provoking...

If you feel traditional meditation taps into your conscience, I wonder what type you are. I get an INTP vibe off your avvy and response, etc. And/or if you know your most undifferentiated functions.

I didn't mean traditional meditation, I just meant meditation in general As in no-mind activity. Awareness of head (thoughts), heart (feelings) or gut (body). There are a gazillion ways to do this of course.

Meditation IS about non-doing. You make your sub/unconscious conscious, when in everyday life you train awareness in simple things. Like maybe you are a smoker and want to quit and you slowly train yourself to become aware of the triggers that make you wanna smoke throughout the day. What makes our subconscious/unconscious habits so strong is that we are not paying attention (consciously doing them) when we do them. Anyways, this is another topic altogether, but I can say that as a 9, I have understood how little attention I pay to my body. It's like I'm literally in a daydreamy reality all day. This keeps me very out of touch with my body, even with pain. I move in a discoordinated manner. Nowadays I can actually feel my body alive while going about my life. This might sound completely ridiculous without a bit of background on this whole meditation shenanigan so I won't go into much more detail.

Also, cognitive functions indicate certain other tendencies. I'm actually an ENFP btw. An intuitive 9 is much more likely of being disconnected from their body than, say an ISFP using Se. So anything that can be said is obviously dependent on each individual. But meditation is a great way of getting to know oneself. The enneagram can help you become aware of your type's bad tendencies so that they can be overcome (mine being disengaging from life in a slew of different ways, to get a false sense of peace, which is why the 9's direction of integration is about being more dynamic and active like a healthy 3).

 

[Eric B]

Then tell the author of this page http://www.ptypes.com/temperaments.html - remember that one? You think we can't mix ancient and modern? Think again. At the very least, we can find the similarities, as Elfboy did in the OP with type 8 and Fi.

Yet somehow the chart at that other page locates "scientist" and "dialectical" in the same column as "choleric" under the general heading "Schizothymic." There is a reason for this which you are neglecting. It has to do with Galen's theory of temperaments which does not match the modern version of "choleric." And it has to do with Elfboy's OP which points to certain similarities between type 8s, who are choleric in the modern sense, and Fi's, who are choleric in the ancient, Galenic sense.

OK, this is Dave Kelly, and he's drawing from Keirsey. Keirsey associated the Idealist with the Choleric, based on the "emotional" part of the temperament. But he neglected the "expressive and task-focused" (to translate to later terms, will get back to this next) part of it.
Kelly now addresses Keirsey's temperaments, but rematches them to Galen, with Rational as Choleric (which I agree with). It's under this column that you see "scientist" and "dialectical". He on the other hand has Idealist as Melancholic. What I believe, is because he could not bring himself to make Idealist the Phlegmatic; again, because of the "emotional" criteria, where Phlegmatic is supposed to be unemotional. So he switches them around further and ends up with Guardian as Phlegmatic!

But look, above the table. He still attributes Galen's definition of Choleric as "quick to react, hot tempered". That is where what you're calling the "modern" definitions came from!

The problem is you're referring to two different theorists with two different interpretations of the temperament correlation; one simply drawing from the other in a few points.
What I should have said from the beginning, is that if you're going to take this "high degree of introversion, withdrawing from social relations generally" as defining "temperament"; then that is not talking about Keirsey's temperaments to begin with. In type theory, that is represented by Interaction Style. Keirsey's temperaments are blind to introversion/extroversion. It's the Interaction Styles that are divided by those, along with directive/informative. Again; the original temperament factors.
In Keirsey's groups (which are "conative"; meaning dealing with action in leadership rather than "affective" social skills, the closest thing that would correspond to introversion/extroversion would be cooperative/pragmatic. And cooperatives (Idealist, Guardian) will be the ones who are slower to take action than the pragmatics.

Galen's four temperaments? Response time had nothing to do with it, that is the modern version.

Yes, that was likely a later adaptation. Galen knew the factors as hot/cold and wet/dry. Choleric was hot and dry. (And When Keirsey tries to map the elements to his groups, he gets them all mixed up, with the "Choleric" Idealist as water! Water was actually Phlegmatic!)

cp 6s (especially 6w7 Sx) can be choleric too, but 8 pretty much defines choleric

I believe that "choleric" behavior associated with cp6's is actually compatible with Supine. As people have said; it's the motives behind behavior that are important (So the FIRO/APS system is similar to Enneagram in many ways).
I believe this is part of the mixup with the NF and Choleric. Some NF's might fit Supine, while others might be Phlegmatic. While Phlegmatic is known for its lack of energy, Supine has just as much emotional energy as the other three. (Phlegmatic was known to be "diplomatic", and NF is actually the one Keirsey tagged with the "Diplomatic skill set!)

So when a Supine is enforcing orders, he can be dominating like a Choleric. They also seem that way when manipulating people to take care of them. (This might not be evident, so you just see them being controlling, again). And when feeling used or lacking appreciation, they can react and lash out; sometimes even violently.
All of this will appear to fit the classic "choleric" behavior. But the motivations are basically opposite. And the temperament was not known until the 1980's, so it was then naturally attributed to other temperaments, including Choleric. Hence, likely, part of Keirsey's NF-Choleric association.

When I watched the videos on Enneagraminstitute, and saw the 6 lady, that is what convinced me that type was Supine!

 

[Mal12345]

OK, this is Dave Kelly, and he's drawing from Keirsey. Keirsey associated the Idealist with the Choleric, based on the "emotional" part of the temperament. But he neglected the "expressive and task-focused" (to translate to later terms, will get back to this next) part of it. Kelley now addresses Keirsey's temperaments, but rematches them to Galen, with Rational as Choleric (which I agree with). It's under this column that you see "scientist" and "dialectical". He on the other hand has Idealist as Melancholic. What I believe, is because he could not bring himself to make Idealist the Phlegmatic; again, because of the "emotional" criteria, where Phlegmatic is supposed to be unemotional. So he switches them around further and ends up with Guardian as Phlegmatic!

But look, above the table. He still attributes Galen's definition of Choleric as "quick to react, hot tempered". That is where what you're calling the "modern" definitions came from!

The problem is you're referring to two different theorists with two different interpretations f the temperament correlation; one simply drawing from the other in a few points.
What I should have said from the beginning, is that if you're going to take this "high degree of introversion, withdrawing from social relations generally" as defining "temperament"; then that is not talking about Keirsey's temperaments to begin with. In type theory, that is represented by Interaction Style. Keirsey's temperaments are blind to introversion/extroversion. It's the Interaction Styles that are divided by those, along with directive/informative. Again; the original temperament factors.
In Keirsey's groups (which are "conative"; meaning dealing with action in leadership rather than "affective" social skills, the closest thing that would correspond to introversion/extroversion would be cooperative/pragmatic. And cooperatives (Idealist, Guardian) will be the ones who are slower to take action than the pragmatics.
Yes, that was likely a later adaptation. Galen knew the factors as hot/cold and wet/dry. Choleric was hot and dry. (And When Keirsey tries to map the elements to his groups, he gets them all mixed up, with the "Choleric" Idealist as water! Water was actually Phlegmatic!

I believe that "choleric" behavior associated with cp6's is actually compatible with Supine. As people have said; it's the motives behind behavior that are important (So the FIRO/APS system is similar to Enneagram in many ways).
I believe this is art of the mixup with the NF and Choleric. Some NF's might fit Supine, while others might be Phlegmatic. While Phlegmatic is known for its lack of energy, Supine has just as much emotional energy as the other three. (Phlegmatic was known to be "diplomatic", and NF is actually the one Keirsey tagged with the "Diplomatic skill set!)
So when a Supine is enforcing orders, he can be dominating like a Choleric. He also seems that way when manipulating people to take care of them. (This might not be evident, so you just see them being controlling, again). And when feeling used or lacking appreciation, he can react and lash out; sometimes even violently.
All of this will appear to fit the classic "choleric" behavior. But the motivations are basically opposite. And the temperament was not known until the 1980's, so it was naturally then attributed to other temperaments, including Choleric. Hence, likely, part of Keirsey's NF-Choleric association.

I see Keirsey as a traditionalist. And in the tradition, a hodgepodge of types can be viewed as Choleric because Galen's type-descriptions are not very profound.

I've been researching your thoughts in some depth trying to sort this out, and I find that it's just a matter of definitions. Keirsey thinks Cholerics belong in the Myers "friendly" category for a reason that's not due to any mix up in his own mind. You can't blame Newton for not knowing about Einstein, and you can't blame Galen for not knowing about the Supine. These same points you make can be found on, I believe, a webpage of yours that I've cited here before. Where do you think I originally gained my knowledge of Galen's problematic types (come to think of it)? Yes, Supines can be choleric and also friendly phlegmatic types in the same person. That's why the type 6 can seem so confusing. But so can the 9w8, a difficult-to-type personality who is phlegmatic/choleric, not supine per se.

What I watched the videos on Enneagraminstitute, and saw the 6 lady, that is what convinced me that type was Supine!

Based on just one example? Was the lady a cp6? Is cp6 G. Gordon Liddy of supine temperament in 1, 2, or all 3 APS scales? How about other type 6's? Does it work in theory but not in practice?

 

[Eric B]

Well, choleric, like the other four temperament names (melancholic, phlegmatic,sanguine and supine), is a generic adjective for behavior, in addition to a temperament name. (Just like thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition) Any person can behave in any of those ways. But to fall into the temperament category, its a natural preference or inclination to behave those ways. So supines (or NF's) can be "choleric" in that generic sense of the word. Again, the temperaments are based on the driving needs, moreso than the outward behaviors.

It wasn't enneagraminstitute, it was Enneagram Worldwide (I always get the two sites mixed up for some reason) http://www.enneagramworldwide.com/explore-the-enneagram/videos-of-the-nine-types/
She seemed to be a definite cp6, and yet the 8 or Choleric confidence is just not there.
I also went by other descriptions and examples I saw. That one was just the best one, in part because it was a live person, and you could even see the mannerisms, confidence level, etc.

I've heard of Liddy, but don't know enough about him (He was supposed to follow in the success of Morton Downey as a talk show host, but never caught on, at least not on TV).
I would say that the 3 APS scales map right on to the three instincts, but of course, Enneagram doesn't stack different types according to the variants. I believe that would also help explain some anomalies or blends (like the wings, tritypes, etc).

The third area, called Affection, might also explain types like FP's being 8 or Choleric. They could be Choleric in Affection, with type being determined by Inclusion (Interaction Style) and Control (Keirsey temperament), and yet the Choleric still modifying the other temperaments. (And I wonder if such would probably be an sx variant).

 

[Mal12345]

Well, choleric, like the other four temperament names (melancholic, phlegmatic,sanguine and supine), is a generic adjective for behavior, in addition to a temperament name. (Just like thinking, feeling, sensing and intuition) Any person can behave in any of those ways. But to fall into the temperament category, its a natural preference or inclination to behave those ways. So supines (or NF's) can be "choleric" in that generic sense of the word. Again, the temperaments are based on the driving needs, moreso than the outward behaviors.

It wasn't enneagraminstitute, it was Enneagram Worldwide (I always get the two sites mixed up for some reason) http://www.enneagramworldwide.com/explore-the-enneagram/videos-of-the-nine-types/
She seemed to be a definite cp6, and yet the 8 or Choleric confidence is just not there.
I also went by other descriptions and examples I saw. That one was just the best one, in part because it was a live person, and you could even see the mannerisms, confidence level, etc.

I've heard of Liddy, but don't know enough about him (He was supposed to follow in the success of Morton Downey as a talk show host, but never caught on, at least not on TV).
I would say that the 3 APS scales map right on to the three instincts, but of course, Enneagram doesn't stack different types according to the variants. I believe that would also help explain some anomalies or blends (like the wings, tritypes, etc).

The third area, called Affection, might also explain types like FP's being 8 or Choleric. They could be Choleric in Affection, with type being determined by Inclusion (Interaction Style) and Control (Keirsey temperament), and yet the Choleric still modifying the other temperaments. (And I wonder if such would probably be an sx variant).

Thank you for taking the time to respond to this very tricky subject.

Liddy has an interesting personality. I've read his autobiography Will as well as seeing the movie by the same name. He's the talk-radio personality, ex-FBI agent, ex-White House operative for Richard Nixon, a counterphobic 6 who would take on tasks others on his team feared to handle. On his show he infamously stated that if an FBI agent charges into your house without a search warrant, that you should aim low. It seems like his counterphobia was almost-if-not-completely pathological.

 

[Elfboy]

I guess the main similarities between FPs and 8s are
- instinct centered
- strong sense of integrity
- visceral response to injustice

 

[Glycerine]

Part of me wonders why we are trying to make a direct link between these. If I were to play along, Te might look the closest to 8 but that's still a stretch.

I guess the main similarities between FPs and 8s are
- instinct centered
- strong sense of integrity
- visceral response to injustice

What does the bold have to do with either esp. Fi.....?

 

[Elfboy]

Part of me wonders why we are trying to make a direct link between these. If I were to play along, Te might look the closest to 8 but that's still a stretch.

What does the bold have to do with either esp. Fi.....?

integrity, honesty and internal fortitude is very important to 8s, it is also important to FPs
same with having a visceral response to injustice. both 8s and FPs have this

 

[yenom]

From what I've seen, ENTP's usually come out as 7w8. (Or ar you talking about pure 8 only).

I detect stupidity here.

 

[Cygnus]

Of course you're getting Te from this idea (from Wikipedia), 'A Choleric, however, is an extroverted "leader"-type who, in the area of control, has a high need to control others, but a low tolerance of others controlling him.' As I said, that's the modern version. And the modern version would have the Ti and Fi as Melancholic types.

However, if you look here

PTypes - The Four Temperaments

you will see that Galen included the Choleric temperament with the schizothymics (as opposed to the cyclothymics):

The classical temperament systems are incorrect because the quantities and qualities of traits assigned to each of the types are unbalanced. According to your link, “Phlegmatic” is depressive while “Melancholic” is the artistic, sensitive personality.
In reality, the sensitive, artistic types are also the ones more prone to brooding and “Melancholy.” This temperament is the real Phlegmatic, the type the INFPs and ISFPs are.
And while this system specified that “Choleric” was the dry, unfeeling, controlling type, the introverted equivalent (in this website’s case, Phlegmatic) was, again, prone to brooding and depression, something completely unbecoming to a Choleric or any introverted analog to the Choleric. The “Phlegmatic” was intended to represent the scientific, disconnected, indifferent personality, isolated from humanity due to apathy. However, this “Phlegmatic” was, again, described as being prone to depression, sadness. If this “Phlegmatic” were anything like the Choleric, he wouldn’t waste his time crying about it, he’d be feverishly designing graphs and diagrams in the hopes that this would solve his problems. That’s not a sad personality, it’s only a sad person to the people around him, who are saddened by his apathy and disconnection. That is what we now define as Melancholic.
According to this site, the “Melancholics” would be exclusively ENFPs and ISFPs, while the “Phlegmatics” would probably be INFJs. The “Sanguines” would be a fictitious personality type that was unable to be affected by any negative emotion ever, especially if ignoring the passion and impulsivity of real-life Sanguines that often gets them mistaken for “Cholerics.”
In fact, the original archetype of the “Choleric” (impulsive, dramatic, emotional, refuses to obey rules) was probably what we would now call Sanguine. And we were unable to believe that this same personality was also capable of unflinching optimism, so we created a Choleric-Sanguine dichotomy based on an unbalanced assignment of traits.
“Is your life perfect and does everything go your way? Good for you, you’re Sanguine.”
“Oh, what’s that? You’re a melodramatic fool who can’t stop crying about how your bleeding heart wants the whole world to die? Choleric for you, mister!”

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

This thread, though long dead, is something that interests me. I think it's a fine testament to the misconceptions we have about Fi as a function--I initially came to this message board typed as Fi because I heard it makes you "individualistic, independent, strong sense of truth, with convictions".

Sorry, but that's not how it works. Type 8 (or any type) is motivational while Fi is actually a cognitive process geared toward interpersonal calculations and developing principles around what you, the individual, value. Most of what's commonly said of Fi-doms actually puts me in mind 9s--for instance, seeing the value in all living things--possibly because a significant proportion of Fi-doms are 9s. It would therefore be far easier for me to argue that Fi-dom is actually more similar to type 9.

As a side note, Fe-users can value justice and truth, they can have unyielding principles, and dislike social expectation. Everything on the list below, actually. Again, it's an interpersonal calculation, not a motivation.

- a strong, visceral response to injustice--If we're going by enneagram, 1s and 6s also do this. Fe users can respond to injustice too.

- insist on being independent--conceivably, 1s, 4s, 5s, 6s, and 7s could do this as well regardless of MBTI.

- become extremely pissed if you try to control them--getting pissed off by control is both a head-center and gut-center issue.

- are wild and free spirited and disdain rules and being expected to be "appropriate"--I'd think this describes a 7 more than either type 8 or Fi.

- strong disliking for social expectation--I'd assign this to 5s first and foremost.

- solid and resilient (FPs to social conditioning and moral adversity; 8s to everything)--Oh those poor lil Fe-users that can't think for themselves or bounce back from anything. Oh those poor brainwashed Fe masses.

- both tend to have protective personalities--Where does it say this about Fi??

- value truth over tact (FPs often value tact and saying things in a nice way when possible, but not at the expense of truth)--I see this as a 5-8 issue (5s have the same problem), and I know some Fi-doms who prefer to keep their heads buried even at the expense of truth.

- both have beliefs and/or preferences that they will not compromise on under any circumstances--So do Fe-dom 1s.

- both insist on doing things "their way"--4s and 7s also feel the need to do things their way. Not 8 related.

I realize this is an old post and you've probably changed your views since then, but given that common depictions of "Fi" once created a mistype, I felt the need to write that.

 

[entropie]

The fuel of all evil is always what one craves the most.

 

[HongDou]

+1 to [MENTION=18576]Sanjuro[/MENTION]'s post.

 

[Azure Flame]

8 has more in common with sensing.

 

[Azure Flame]

The fuel of all evil is always what one craves the most.

I would say the fuel of all evil is fear. But I think I get where you're coming from.

 

[violett]

These are the dominant MBTI functions and Enneagram Type correlations:

E1 = Extroverted Thinking
E2 = Extroverted Feeling
E3 = No direct correlation but I personally know an Estp 3w2
E4 = Introverted Intuition
E5 = Introverted Thinking
E6 = Introverted Feeling
E7 = Extroverted Sensing
E8 = Extroverted Intuition
E9 = Introverted Sensing

Those are just what I can remember off the top of my head, its been a while.

 

[Chad of the OttomanEmpire]

E1 = Extroverted Thinking
E2 = Extroverted Feeling
E3 = No direct correlation but I personally know an Estp 3w2
E4 = Introverted Intuition
E5 = Introverted Thinking
E6 = Introverted Feeling
E7 = Extroverted Sensing
E8 = Extroverted Intuition
E9 = Introverted Sensing

That's according to Riso and Hudson, though. Other authors correlate them differently. (Just fyi.)

 

[violett]

That's according to Riso and Hudson, though. Other authors correlate them differently. (Just fyi.)

Yes, I am aware different authors correlate the two systems. I studied Riso and Hudson the longest as far as the enneagram is concerned, so thats why their correlations are the first which come to mind.

Here's another good resource.

JavaScript Tool for Exploring Typological Space

The Enneagram and the MBTI: an electronic journal on the relationship between the two personality typing systems.