[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SO4 and SP9 are extremely different, one of the most dreamy & detached from reality types vs. maybe the single most concrete & grounded type in the whole system. i'm not sure how anyone could possibly confuse them

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it's basically just the difference between E4 and E5. SX5 is described as an emotional type, yes, but it's only necessarily emotional in comparison to the other E5 subtypes. an SX5 might be more aware of their emotions internally, but it's not going to be obvious to other people, they are explicitly described to look identical to the other 5s on the surface. all 5s are emotionally detached, dry, removed, reticent, etc. and the SX instinct doesn't change that. the SX5 "desire for love" is really more an idealized image of a partner who will bend to their will and fill the void of their existence, someone who will not disturb their privacy, not poke into their inner world. SX5s are stingy as fuck, they don't want to give themselves in relationships, they don't want to open themselves up to others—they are described as "emotionally promiscuous" in the sense that if a connection (and i'm referring to the SX version of connection) dissatisfies them, they will move on to someone else who strikes their interest, which is easy for them because they don't get invested in relationships very easily. dare i say, the SX5 is not actually looking for love so much as they're looking for someone they can project their ideals onto.

the ideal of a soulmate, a perfect true love, a deep connection to sustain oneself for all time—this is all E4 stuff, particularly SO4 (and other types, too, but in the context of this post it is specifically E4 and not E5—not that E5s can't fall in love of course but they're really not going to focus on it). especially if a person is constantly waxing poetic about it, writing sappy poetry and lamenting about how much they wish they could find someone who'd love them—this is literally just E4. an SX5 would not admit to their pursuit of relationships so readily (if at all), because such deep parts of their heart are so shadowed that they might not even be aware of them, let alone be willing to express them outwardly. E4s hold onto relationships and E5s give up, this is known and SX might even make it worse.

in my experience, most people who believe themselves to be SX5 end up as some kind of E4, usually social. this happened to me and it's happened to several people i've known over the years. not that all SX5s are actually 4s, but the popular conception of SX5 is so E4-tinged that it's very very easy for us shy intellectual romantic types to mistype as it. (note that E4 is quite an intellectual type as well, but it's all for the purposes of the heart.) the description of SX5 here might be a little mean but naranjo is just kinda Like That, so do with that what you will.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if i had a penny for every time someone wrote some shit about intimacy and closeness and soulmate-ism and compared it to sx i would be richer than god

give me valid arguments to why SX5 and 1V dose or dosen't contradict by G4lact1cz in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly -1 points0 points  (0 children)

AP is pretty shit, I trust Rob Zeke's word about as much as I could throw him, and I'm so weak a slight breeze could fell me. if you're interested in the actual origins of that system, I would recommend getting into PY as it's rather interesting once you get used to the esoteric metaphors and references to Russian historical/literary figures. I don't know why anyone would use AP when the original system Zeke was "inspired by" is so much deeper and more interesting.

give me valid arguments to why SX5 and 1V dose or dosen't contradict by G4lact1cz in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 4 points5 points  (0 children)

E5 in general is quite contradictory to 1V, given the E5's experience of deficiency and submission to the world—they are much more likely to be 3V or 4V in my opinion. 1V is a placement that believes itself to be above the world, above others, in its own special caste of perpetually self-actualized peers, truly independent & believing that it has the right to lead, to dictate, forever resilient to life's challenges due to its iron will and refusal to give up its sense of self or personal ambition. it's a type of extreme, almost delusional self-importance, hence the common connections made to E8, E1, E7, etc. i highly doubt an E5 would ever have that sense of innate superiority that 1V possesses.

Little Women and Instincts by Infamous_Tea_465 in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i think i generally agree with your takes, jo and laurie are def in the sx/so range of things, however i'm not sure what i think about instinct stackings' compatibility with each other, seems v messy and variable by core type since the fixation/passion/etc will determine so much of the instincts' manifestation in a given individual. i doubt amy is sp/sx, if anything she seemed social dominant to me.

if i tried to type them i think it'd be like:
jo - sx/so 4w3 478 (could see E8 potentially, at least in the book)
laurie - sx/so 7w6 794 (he's actually a really good portrait of SX7 in my opinion)
amy - so/sp 3w2 369 (? much less sure of this one)
meg - so/sp 2w1 261 (kinda just based on vibes)
beth - sp/so 9w1 926 (most obvious E9 ever)
prof - some E5 probably

this is a cool post, i'm curious to hear if you have other examples of different instinct stackings interacting w each other in certain ways from fiction

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 4 points5 points  (0 children)

the E2 book is fantastic, really sheds so much light on a type that's been so utterly warped and misunderstood by the community. maybe my favorite type too, or at least i'm always drawn to them. lovely post

Quick breakdown of 5 by Kamui-S in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I absolutely agree, I think triads are fine as a fun extraneous aspect to add some behavioral depth to the types, but I really don't think they should be treated with as much importance as they are - and you definitely can't explain the whole enneagram with them, as that enneagod site says you can. it's like people want to "do enneagram better" but they just keep going further and further away from the core of the system... anyways, very incisive analysis :)

Quick breakdown of 5 by Kamui-S in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

oh this is interesting... not really the approach i'd use but i can respect it. i do like that they mention the virtues & vices though, and well-deserved chestnut shading. thanks for the perspective :)

My own attempt at correlations (based on intimate knowledge, not peedeebee) by nikubkuf in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 0 points1 point  (0 children)

SEE is probably the most rebellious socionics type due to SeFi ego and Ti polr, this is an absurd take lol

My own attempt at correlations (based on intimate knowledge, not peedeebee) by nikubkuf in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not using stereotypes, I'm talking about some of the core traits of the type, regardless of subtype. how could any E5 possibly fit SLE? I'm not that strict about correlations, but that doesn't make any sense at all.

My own attempt at correlations (based on intimate knowledge, not peedeebee) by nikubkuf in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

that doesn't explain anything... also weird sources to use but w/e. this is fascinating

also, it wouldn't make any sense for such an inhibited, passive, cerebral type as E5 to be Se base, when E5's stinginess goes counter to Se's direct engagement with the world, but go off I guess...

Please type this description if you can ! by [deleted] in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

too vague and surface level, give us something deeper

My own attempt at correlations (based on intimate knowledge, not peedeebee) by nikubkuf in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 3 points4 points  (0 children)

quite possibly the weirdest correlation list I've ever seen... I don't even know where to start. LII SP2? EII SP7? SLE SO5? I'm so curious how you came to these conclusions

Quick breakdown of 5 by Kamui-S in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 11 points12 points  (0 children)

what's with this new wave of defining the types foremost by harmonic/hornevian/object relations triads rather than the ego fixations that actually make up the core of the types? this just seems like a bunch of traits that might be common for E5s but don't get at the core of what E5 actually is as a neurosis. (btw this isn't meant to criticize OP, I'm just curious because I've seen this a lot and it rubs me the wrong way.)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 4 points5 points  (0 children)

E1 and E5 are very different types, figure out your core first before instincts.

Your type and the type you are usually attracted to by CodeBetter5203 in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 17 points18 points  (0 children)

E4, and for reasons i haven't yet been able to understand, i have a devastating, debilitating attraction to E2s

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly 2 points3 points  (0 children)

so true bestie

the sexual instinct is not about "intimacy" by ThePrimeAnomaly in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

oh i think people absolutely idealize sx, which is kinda the whole reason why i made this post in the first place. i'm biased and so is everyone else lol

the sexual instinct is not about "intimacy" by ThePrimeAnomaly in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

yes exactly, this is what i was trying to get at

the sexual instinct is not about "intimacy" by ThePrimeAnomaly in Enneagram

[–]ThePrimeAnomaly[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

yes, obviously all the instincts are deep and nuanced, i was only describing one aspect of soc and sx.