INFJs and Enneagram

[charlatan]

note -- I at this point don't tend to think everyone needs a dominant wing (both could be balanced influence) so one remaining question is if I'm just a 6 period, not 6w5.

(examples of possible non-wingers and wingers for contrast: I'd say the Architect from the Matrix movies is probably the purest kind of E1, a sort of mathematical perfection purely for its own sake type; a 1w9 might be someone like Dumbledore from Harry Potter...or Gandalf from LOTR/etc....and a 1w2 is someone like Hermione Granger.)

For E6, I'd guess someone like Dolores Umbridge sounds purely 6-ish. Norman Bates from Psycho seems 6w5 (dominated by his mother...extraordinarily private, has a mental illusion he's afraid will be broken that's tied to his relation of authority...of course this is the unhealthy variety) 6w7 -- maybe Alfrid from the Hobbit movies (clearly tends to kiss authority's rear end and is eager to suck up to Bard once the dragon kills the master of Laketown...all to protect his self-interest....and is pretty driven by gluttony as displayed by his attitude to gold -- was one of the ones who shot down Bard's desire to not provoke the dragon/had a more go-for-it attitude towards the dwarves' mission to get the gold.)

 

[charlatan]

The one thing 5-ish about me I can think of is not the withholding myself stuff but more the "I think the world is unreasonable/often try to withdraw from dealing with it."
That is, minimizing how much you need to deal with an unreasonable situation. I think this is auxiliary to 6 since I tend to think if you jump in and just try to deal with an unreasonable situation, you can never have peace of mind that it'll work out. Not worth it.

A lot of people seem a lot more practical in how they're willing to deal with unreasonable situations. I tend not to be.

 

[Ren]

note -- I at this point don't tend to think everyone needs a dominant wing (both could be balanced influence) so one remaining question is if I'm just a 6 period, not 6w5.

Interesting point. I guess the next question might be: how do you see your 7 wing influence playing out in your personality?

I will probably officialise my return to Type 4 imminently, haha. But I have been thinking about this: 4w5, as in many ways I would consider obvious, or 4w3? I have some 4w3 traits too, I must say. So in the end I may just decide to display Type 4 and nothing else.

 

[charlatan]

Interesting point. I guess the next question might be: how do you see your 7 wing influence playing out in your personality?

In a very 6-ish way! Here's one very standard move I find myself pulling on people: X is scary, and I want to avoid X with some good reason. I tell people "what's so great about X -- Y is even cooler! So what reason could I have for wanting X when I could want Y instead? And you can keep doing this further and further...." until I basically convince myself there's no reason to go after it. I might go to some Y that's so hard to get that it's impractical but then I say "well if this trite, boring world doesn't allow for that, surely I'm not going to let that influence me into troubling myself about going for X..."

Basically I shoot for the extremes of cool, awesome, extraordinary, but I think as opposed to the 7 way of taking a taste of everything and then deciding I want something else, I don't really get to anything. Just imagine it.

This isn't 5-ish because I'm sort of subjecting myself to the test of "What IF I really want it? I have to prove to myself there's no sane reason" -- it's not withdrawing/inhibiting, there's more of a genuine need to convince myself.

 

[charlatan]

I do think some have a dominant wing, I mean even with dominant wing, you get influence from both probably. But I think not everyone need have a dominant one -- it's kinda forced in a lot of cases.

Just not sure if I have one....might just be relatively pure 6, who knows

 

[Ren]

Just not sure if I have one....might just be relatively pure 6, who knows

As long you don't forget you're "phobic"

Ok, what does that mean?

 

[charlatan]

Yeah @Ren I don't think there's any question I'm the phobic subtype

 

[Ren]

I do think some have a dominant wing, I mean even with dominant wing, you get influence from both probably. But I think not everyone need have a dominant one -- it's kinda forced in a lot of cases.

Just not sure if I have one....might just be relatively pure 6, who knows

One trait you seem to have is that you find reassurance in the idea of keeping options open, whether that be in terms of philosophical theories, personality traits, or anything else. Having a wide panorama of different possible combinations of propositions that would each be coherent and defensible, and prizing access to that panorama way more than ownership of a specific combination. Almost like you would find it stressful and shackling to be tied monolithically to a specific combination.

Don't know how that would translate into Enneagram speak. It's interesting because I do think there are people who find reassurance in the opposite, i.e. in settling for a specific type and then embracing it as one's very own essence, possibly at the expense of truly considering other options over time.

 

[charlatan]

@Ren sure ! I totally think so too. The interesting thing is it's not like I'm sorta postmodernist and say "anything goes" either -- I'm quite willing to say what doesn't work as an argument

However, I'm less interested in settling on what does work....I prefer exhaustive caution, no dogmatism, and so on. Thinking of everything > reaching conclusion

If something is so natural that all options get naturally ruled out, I'm OK settling into the conclusion

 

[Ren]

@Ren sure ! I totally think so too. The interesting thing is it's not like I'm sorta postmodernist and say "anything goes" either -- I'm quite willing to say what doesn't work as an argument

However, I'm less interested in settling on what does work....I prefer exhaustive caution, no dogmatism, and so on. Thinking of everything > reaching conclusion

Interestingly, my approach would not be: think everything > reach conclusion

But rather: get a feel of everything => intuitively arrive at a (hopefully original) synthesis

I think it’s quite interesting to compare because on the surface, these two approaches might display similar features, including a prima facie curiosity and tolerance about a very diverse array of theories, and suspicion towards definitely settling for a particular theory; as well as enjoyment in talking about diverse theories without necessarily subscribing to them at all. That’s something I have always found very striking in people: many of them tend to assume I subscribe to something when in fact I’m just interested in discussing it in depth, even to the point of imagining taking the stance of somebody who may in fact be subscribing to the said theory. I think we’ve experienced that a little bit with wolly on the Neutral Monism thread, actually. I don’t think he would be as “shapeshifty” as us when it comes to looking at other theories including some that may seem to suffer from serious flaws.

However, and to return to my initial distinction, I suspect that you and I may have different background motivations for adopting this kind of attitude. You seem to want to think and understand every possible angle in a conscious way; whereas I’m nearly always in the following mode: “I’ll embrace this for now in case it helps me progress further in my own synthesis – in case I discover a particular feature of this theory which is in fact the answer to a particular problem I was facing in my own philosophical development.” It’s nowhere near as conscious: I just know from experience that when I allow myself to ‘drift into’ or ‘soak in’ these approaches, I eventually reach eureka/moments of clarity later down the line in my own specific path of thinking, which in itself isn’t so democratic. @Wyote and I were referring to this as the encounter with an “Ni moment” and the sorting out of Ni moments into an Ni tank, and I think there might be some truth to this. In a way I do soak in or “get a feel” of many different theories because I’m trying to create the conditions for the next Ni moment.

 

[charlatan]

many of them tend to assume I subscribeto something when in fact I’m just interested in discussing it in depth, even to the point of imagining taking the stance of somebody who may in fact be subscribing to the said theory. I think we’ve experienced that a little bit with wolly on the Neutral Monism thread, actually. I don’t think he would be as “shapeshifty” as us when it comes to looking at other theories including some that may seem to suffer from serious flaws.

Yup; I think that's part of how I think of Ne manifesting for me at least.... there's a tendency to associate Ne with considering every possibility, even fantastical. I both display the enthusiasm going "that's cool to think about!" and a kind of caution "We don't want to rule that out -- but we also don't want to assign it more probability than it deserves"

It's very true many wouldn't be as shapeshifty as us on this. For me it's just natural to want to build the strongest version of every position, even ones I'm not convinced of....and it's really fun to do it too. It's not just an obligation I feel, it's actually energizing for me.

You seem to want to think and understand every possible angle in a conscious way; whereas I’m nearly always in the following mode: “I’ll embrace this for now in case it helps me progress further in my own synthesis – in case I discover a particular feature of this theory which is in fact the answer to a particular problem I was facing in my own philosophical development.”

Yeah that sounds about it.... it's actually what energizes me most. Thinking of everything 'fundamental' that can be said on a subject, till there's nothing beyond boring details to iron out.

 

[charlatan]

I also think there are subtypes of how Ne manifests.... some are more optimistic, the kind that get enamored and idealize some cool possibility, others are more skeptical and truly bounce from thing to thing. You can guess which I am

 

[Ren]

I also think there are subtypes of how Ne manifests.... some are more optimistic, the kind that get enamored and idealize some cool possibility, others are more skeptical and truly bounce from thing to thing. You can guess which I am

I think I may have an idea, Mr. Bounce

 

[Ginny]

note -- I at this point don't tend to think everyone needs a dominant wing (both could be balanced influence) so one remaining question is if I'm just a 6 period, not 6w5.

(examples of possible non-wingers and wingers for contrast: I'd say the Architect from the Matrix movies is probably the purest kind of E1, a sort of mathematical perfection purely for its own sake type; a 1w9 might be someone like Dumbledore from Harry Potter...or Gandalf from LOTR/etc....and a 1w2 is someone like Hermione Granger.)

For E6, I'd guess someone like Dolores Umbridge sounds purely 6-ish. Norman Bates from Psycho seems 6w5 (dominated by his mother...extraordinarily private, has a mental illusion he's afraid will be broken that's tied to his relation of authority...of course this is the unhealthy variety) 6w7 -- maybe Alfrid from the Hobbit movies (clearly tends to kiss authority's rear end and is eager to suck up to Bard once the dragon kills the master of Laketown...all to protect his self-interest....and is pretty driven by gluttony as displayed by his attitude to gold -- was one of the ones who shot down Bard's desire to not provoke the dragon/had a more go-for-it attitude towards the dwarves' mission to get the gold.)

If this is correct, my 1 wings would be rather balanced after all, or whatever it would be called. Because I can be both Dumbledore-ish and Hermione-ish.

Interesting point. I guess the next question might be: how do you see your 7 wing influence playing out in your personality?

I will probably officialise my return to Type 4 imminently, haha. But I have been thinking about this: 4w5, as in many ways I would consider obvious, or 4w3? I have some 4w3 traits too, I must say. So in the end I may just decide to display Type 4 and nothing else.

 

[Ren]

@charlatan I think ultimately what separates our approaches is that yours seems largely selfless (i.e. thinking of everything fundamental that can be said on a subject, for its own sake) while mine is ultimately quite selfish (i.e. absorbing information for my project, for my own sake). I'm overplaying things a bit, but in this distinction we may find traces of the Type 4 versus Type 6 distinction - and there you go, back to Enneagram

 

[Lady Jolanda]

I also think there are subtypes of how Ne manifests.... some are more optimistic, the kind that get enamored and idealize some cool possibility, others are more skeptical and truly bounce from thing to thing. You can guess which I am

Haha, I'm the former kind for sure. You appear to be the latter kind. Do you think that's possibly enneagram related too?

I prefer exhaustive caution, no dogmatism, and so on. Thinking of everything > reaching conclusion
If something is so natural that all options get naturally ruled out, I'm OK settling into the conclusion

Haha wow. That is so relatable. Charlatan, as a fellow ENTP/Ne-ILE, do you know some good resources on our type?

@charlatan I think ultimately what separates our approaches is that yours seems largely selfless (i.e. thinking of everything fundamental that can be said on a subject, for its own sake) while mine is ultimately quite selfish (i.e. absorbing information for my project, for my own sake). I'm overplaying things a bit...

Or possibly, introversion vs extroversion? Note that I'm *not* calling introverts selfish. What I'm aiming at instead is that for extroverts, the energy flows outwards, towards the object, and for introverts, the energy flows inwards, drawing from the object into itself? (I'm paraphrasing Jung here.)

 

[Ren]

That is so relatable. Charlatan, as a fellow ENTP/Ne-ILE, do you know some good resources on our type?

Good resources from a charlatan? I'd say you should at least double check

Or possibly, introversion vs extroversion? Note that I'm *not* calling introverts selfish. What I'm aiming at instead is that for extroverts, the energy flows outwards, towards the object, and for introverts, the energy flows inwards, drawing from the object into itself? (I'm paraphrasing Jung here.)

I think the introversion plays a role, for sure. Like you said, in the introvert the energy flows inwards. But maybe the "flow" is different between an Ni, Si, Ti or Fi dom. In my opinion - but this is only very tentative - what I described above as similar "attitudes" to theories on the surface might be indicative of shared dominant intuition. Make it introverted, and it yields Ni.

Regarding Enneagram 4, I'd say evidence for it could also be found in this process at a yet deeper level: behind the attitude there is the thought process; but behind or intricately woven into the thought process there is the motivation, the "willing". And I would say that's where 4ness emerges. Introversion has more explanatory power at the thought process level, I think. But when it comes to the motivation, then we may perhaps identify 4ness is the desire to harness Ni moments, through the unconscious benefits of an attitude of openness to different theories, with the ultimate goal of coming up with an original synthesis that feeds into one's sense of being "different".

 

[AUM]

...with the ultimate goal of coming up with an original synthesis that feeds into one's sense of being "different".

And after you find that one nugget of truth and wisdom, -that synthesis that connects all the dots- you become melancholic to the fact that only you are aware of its significance. When you try to communicate it to the outside world you find out that no one cares or understands what you've uncovered because its a highly subjective insight. "Why do I even bother?" you say as you go back to your cave filled with all the beautiful treasures that you were once so readily willing to share to those who wanted a piece. You lock the cave to the outside world as you try to uncover even deeper the secrets of the universe. You're already too invested in this, even if it's a lonely journey.

 

[Wyote]

In a way I do soak in or “get a feel” of many different theories because I’m trying to create the conditions for the next Ni moment.

:thumbsup:

 

[charlatan]

Haha, I'm the former kind for sure. You appear to be the latter kind. Do you think that's possibly enneagram related too?

Yup, it's natural if you're a 7 and are the former kind/I'm 6-ish and the latter kind! I think they're both very recognizable subtypes, too!

Haha wow. That is so relatable. Charlatan, as a fellow ENTP/Ne-ILE, do you know some good resources on our type?

Unfortunately I just have a scatterbrained mush of impressions/don't know which is from where at this point :O