• 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.

Mistyped TypeCentral Members

Luminous

༻✧✧༺
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
9,857
MBTI Type
Iᑎᖴᑭ
Enneagram
952
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
What I find rather interesting (even despite I am combining MBTI and the Enneagram by doing this) are SO-doms with Fi in their stacking (or at least that's what they claim to be). This for some reason does not make sense to me at all.

Why couldn't a Fi dom be an so dom? It would mean they focus on connecting with others and participating/contributing and reading others. There's nothing necessarily ingruent there. It could come out as putting one's values into action in the social realm.
 

Schrödinger's Name

Blessed With A Curse
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,693
Why couldn't a Fi dom be an so dom? It would mean they focus on connecting with others and participating/contributing and reading others. There's nothing necessarily ingruent there. It could come out as putting one's values into action in the social realm.

I didn't say they can't be an SO-dom. Only that it looks odd to me when I apply the generalized description of the Enneagram instincts combined with the generalized description of Fi-doms.
 

Vendrah

Never-retiring Millenial
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,853
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
ENFPs and 1 are compatible

No no no no!
Nay nay nay nay!

Schrödinger's Name said:
What excludes an ENFP from being an E1?

Ok, time for the long and concpetual-focused explanation, the short and data-focused explanation is on my last post on the page 780 of this thread.

This is related to the core mistake:
They are Fi users and Fi users are rather known for having their own inner world and (strong) values as E1's do (relating to the values).

Here it is the flawed reasoning: Feelings in general are associated with values, and E1 is associated with values, then feelers are associated with type 1s since they merge with values. But statistics says that most E1's (something like 70-90%) are thinkers, and not feelers! So, what has gone wrong?

Well, the cool thing about connecting enneagram and MBTI is that we can have a different view of the same thing - both are accessing "human personality". And Jung, even without knowing about the enneagram, did captured enneagram 1 morality well.

Jung said:
We will first discuss the extraverted thinking type.

In accordance with his definition, we must picture a, man whose constant aim -- in so far, of course, as he is a [p. 435] pure type -- is to bring his total life-activities into relation with intellectual conclusions, which in the last resort are always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. This type of man gives the deciding voice-not merely for himself alone but also on behalf of his entourage-either to the actual objective reality or to its objectively orientated, intellectual formula. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined. All is right that corresponds with this formula; all is wrong that contradicts it; and everything that is neutral to it is purely accidental. Because this formula seems to correspond with the meaning of the world, it also becomes a world-law whose realization must be achieved at all times and seasons, both individually and collectively. Just as the extraverted thinking type subordinates himself to his formula, so, for its own good, must his entourage also obey it, since the man who refuses to obey is wrong -- he is resisting the world-law, and is, therefore, unreasonable, immoral, and without a conscience. His moral code forbids him to tolerate exceptions; his ideal must, under all circumstances, be realized; for in his eyes it is the purest conceivable formulation of objective reality, and, therefore, must also be generally valid truth, quite indispensable for the salvation of man. This is not from any great love for his neighbour, but from a higher standpoint of justice and truth. Everything in his own nature that appears to invalidate this formula is mere imperfection, an accidental miss-fire, something to be eliminated on the next occasion, or, in the event of further failure, then clearly a sickness.

If tolerance for the sick, the suffering, or the deranged should chance to be an ingredient in the formula, special provisions will be devised for humane societies, hospitals, prisons, colonies, etc., or at least extensive plans for such projects. For the actual execution of these schemes the [p. 436] motives of justice and truth do not, as a rule, suffice; still devolve upon real Christian charity, which I to do with feeling than with any intellectual 'One really should' or I one must' figure largely in this programme. If the formula is wide enough, it may play a very useful rôle in social life, with a reformer or a ventilator of public wrongs or a purifier of the public conscience, or as the propagator of important innovations. But the more rigid the formula, the more, does he develop into a grumbler, a crafty reasoner, and a self-righteous critic, who would like to impress both himself and others into one schema.
(...)
There are a few painful examples in science where investigators of the highest esteem, from a profound conviction of the truth and general validity of their formula, have not scrupled to falsify evidence in favour of their ideal. This is sanctioned by the formula; the end justifieth the means.

Well, I don't think I really need to even put any type 1 descriptions, because obviously the link between type 1 and what I had wrote is hopefully obvious.

However, there is another subject here: Si. Si is one of a headache in Jung; Jung's original Si is very difficult to explain beyond "internal body sensations" and "past-experience orientation". It starts speaking even about art, where ISTJs and ISFJs aren't usually much artistic at all. Because of this, many sources had re-shaped Si into a just "SJ", and the post-Jung Si, that is the one used on the test and the one people have been using to type themselves, use traits that were 'stolen' from Te and Fe mostly. I really don't find a 'iconic' description of SJ neither an official one, so let's be happy just with this slide share to make my point:

myers-briggs-personality-and-medical-specialties-49-638.jpg


Well, that "Rules and standard way of doing things", "Regulations and rewards are certain" overlaps with this moralistic part of the intellectual formula.

Since this aspect of Te has been inserted on Si, and people indeed use this aspect as if it were Si instead of Te, I did recognized it as Si instead. So, this is the link of type 1 and Si (that in Jung it is actually Type 1 and Te), and since ENFPs and ENTPs are in average Si-tards, a really high Si would compromise ENFPs and ENTPs type; Therefore ENFPs and ENTPs can't be enneagram type 1, that is inconsistent.

The values from the feelings, specially from Fi, and values from type 1 are different, even if they are confused. A highly idealistic person full of values is not necessarily a type 1, the values from type 1 indeed have an "intrinsic nature" related to some sort of idealistic formula.

PS: I am skeptical but I don't reject the integration/disintegration theory (it is actually a little bit cool); In this framework, a type 7 can disintegrate to 1, meaning that a ENFP/ENTP 7 can disintegrate to 1, but that disintegration indeed would change their MBTI type (more likely to ENFJ/ENTJ/INFP/INTP), or at least how their MBTI type is read not only by the tests but by the others as well.
PS2: My reasoning is for CORE type only. The 'fixes' on tri-type can be anything because they are weaker. So, a ENFP/ENTP with a tri-type X1Y is awkward but consistent (actually, the consistency depends on which types are X and Y, and what is the most relevant type out of that tri-type).
 

Schrödinger's Name

Blessed With A Curse
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
1,693
always orientated by objective data, whether objective facts or generally valid ideas. By this formula are good and evil measured, and beauty and ugliness determined.
This is a completely different discussion, but 'objectively' measuring what's 'good and evil', 'beauty and ugliness'? Though the 'valid ideas' already says enough. What makes an idea 'valid' after all? You can merely get a consensus on that but it'll never be 100% objective.

But statistics says that most E1's (something like 70-90%) are thinkers, and not feelers!
How reliable are those statistics? How do the people who gathered the information to make those statistics know for sure that those people are accurately typed? It's not possible to prove that.

Sure, everyone would like to claim that their values and principles are backed up by/based upon high 'objective' research and facts. That doesn't mean that that's always the case.
Even if those statistics are 'right' there's still room for 30%-10% E1's that are not thinkers.
 

awbro

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
682
MBTI Type
ISFJ
Enneagram
693
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Let's play whack-a-mole. Take a whack at me. :happy2:
 

Vendrah

Never-retiring Millenial
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,853
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
This is a completely different discussion, but 'objectively' measuring what's 'good and evil', 'beauty and ugliness'? Though the 'valid ideas' already says enough. What makes an idea 'valid' after all? You can merely get a consensus on that but it'll never be 100% objective.

Jung does address that later, but my point was just to explain the link between Type 1 and Jung Te.


How reliable are those statistics? How do the people who gathered the information to make those statistics know for sure that those people are accurately typed? It's not possible to prove that.

Sure, everyone would like to claim that their values and principles are backed up by/based upon high 'objective' research and facts. That doesn't mean that that's always the case.
Even if those statistics are 'right' there's still room for 30%-10% E1's that are not thinkers.

I made the entire explanation of why these statistics are the way they are, and why ENFP and ENTP can't be 1s, not why Feelers can't be ones because some Feelers types can be 1s.

Honestly, I already made my part to try to bring light, explanation and information...
 

Lateralus

New member
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
6,262
MBTI Type
ENTJ
Enneagram
3w4
[MENTION=266]Lateralus[/MENTION]
I think you're an INTJ. your posts display much more Fi than I've seen in any ENTJ I can think of. also, you don't quite come across as a core 3 to me. I could buy 5w6, 1w9 or 6w5 for you.
I think you're onto something but have you considered how much I like looking at myself in the mirror?
 

Majesty

Permabanned
Joined
Oct 10, 2020
Messages
247
MBTI Type
ME
Enneagram
ME
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
Take a whack at me as well :D
 
Top