On 2002-03-01 00:06, Eric A Meece wrote:

Prophets are the other "inner-directed" archetype. That is why I think they are basically more introverted and introspective.

That may be an important correction. If we tie "inward-direction" to introverted judging, then perhaps the Prophet archetype is INFP and the Artist INFJ? But it sure seems like the Prophet is the INFJ and the Artist the INFP. And technically, inwardly directed just means that the dominant function is introverted, in terms of this theory (I think?). So it is not true that all xxTPs are inwardly directed as I asserted earlier for Nomads. IxTPs are, but not ExTPs. Still, there is linkage between them all in that they all rely upon the same judging function (Ti) as their primary one. Therefore, they all judge the world in a reasonably similar way.

I'll take a detailed look at your grid later. It looks interesting.

On 2002-03-01 00:20, Eric A Meece wrote:

I wonder if what you have come up with is something like what we have been thinking about with regard to saecula; that is, are there saecula within saecula? Are there types within types?

Very interesting. I had started to think about something like this yesterday. Let me see if I can make anything out of your theory:

Therefore, according to my interpretation of your correlation:

INTJ - hero/prophet (the mastermind)
ENTJ - hero/hero (the fieldmarshall)
ISTJ - hero/artist (the inspector)
ESTJ - hero/nomad (the supervisor)

INTP - nomad/prophet (the designer)
ENTP - nomad/hero (the inventor)
ISTP - nomad/artist (the craftsman)
ESTP - nomad/nomad (the entrepreneur)

INFJ - prophet/prophet (the prophet)
ENFJ - prophet/hero (the pedagogue)
ISFJ - prophet/artist (the conservator)
ESFJ - prophet/nomad (the provider)

INFP - artist/prophet (the visionary healer)
ENFP - artist/hero (the crusader/champion)
ISFP - artist/artist (the composer)
ESFP - artist/nomad (the performer)

It would make sense to consider the four IN types as prophet types for each generational archetype. Let me see if I can arrive at the same ordering:

Within each generational archetype:

IN = prophet (IN is the philosopher, theorist, etc.)
IS = artist (IS is the type which transforms the abstraction into practical reality)
ES = nomad (ES is the most practical and worldly)
EN = hero (EN by default since it is the only one left)

This is tough and I'll have to think about it some more. However if we simply go by "inwardly-directed" and "outwardly-directed," then the nomad would be the IS type and the artist would be one of the E types. The hero would be the other E type. But doesn't the stereotypical nomad seem more extraverted than the stereotypical artist? This really is tough.

Eric, I gave a little more thought to your "wheel within a wheel" to assess whether it has any utility. Something did occur to me. Let me recopy it first:

On 2002-03-01 00:20, Eric A Meece wrote:

INTJ - hero/prophet (the mastermind)
ENTJ - hero/hero (the fieldmarshall)
ISTJ - hero/artist (the inspector)
ESTJ - hero/nomad (the supervisor)

INTP - nomad/prophet (the designer)
ENTP - nomad/hero (the inventor)
ISTP - nomad/artist (the craftsman)
ESTP - nomad/nomad (the entrepreneur)

INFJ - prophet/prophet (the prophet)
ENFJ - prophet/hero (the pedagogue)
ISFJ - prophet/artist (the conservator)
ESFJ - prophet/nomad (the provider)

INFP - artist/prophet (the visionary healer)
ENFP - artist/hero (the crusader/champion)
ISFP - artist/artist (the composer)
ESFP - artist/nomad (the performer)

I believe the types as you have assigned them do properly correspond to archetypes within the archetype. But it still leaves a question as to what it means. For example, if we treat each archetype's quartet as a self-contained process, then the logical sequence would be IN (Generation) -> EN (Expansion) -> IS (Condensation) -> ES (Feed). But this order does not correspond to the order of saeculum. For example, the hero in the inner cycle precedes the nomad. So I am not sure that there is any value in assuming that a systematic process takes place within a generation. These assignments must reflect something else.

I think what we may be seeing here is the type of individual which a given generation is more apt to seek to perform a certain role. For example, a Nomad generation is probably more apt to respond to an INTP philosopher than any of the other three and it really does not matter whether the INTP philosopher is himself Nomad. Of course he can be, but it does not matter. Following along, a Nomad generation may be more apt to look to an ENTP to perform the role of a hero...and again it is irrelevant whether the actual ENTP hero is a Nomad or not. The generation is more apt to look toward an ISTP to construct whatever needs to be constructed, literally or figuratively. And finally the generation is more apt to look toward an ESTP to promote whatever needs to be promoted.

So what you get is a marked revival of libertarianism as a Nomad generation begins to reach adulthood (as S&H note), and the natural law philosophers (probably overwhelmingly INTP) enjoy renewed popularity. As the second wave of Nomads reaches adulthood, there is a slight shift to the left and traditional anarchism is revived, and I would think that anarchist philosophers tend to be heavily INTP as well (with a strong sprinkling of INFPs, I suspect). So the dominant mood among Nomads sparks a revival of INTP-type thought. The other generations favor their own differing types of philosophers as shown in your scheme above.

As this theory goes, in a time of crisis, the greatest number of Nomads, again based upon that generational mood, would look toward an ENTP to perform the role of a hero. And it is very interesting to note that all of our American Gray Champions, obvious heroes, may very well have been ENTPs. Benjamin Franklin definitely was one. I strongly suspect that Abraham Lincoln was as well, albeit a depressive one (and I am fairly confident that he was not INTP as is generally claimed). FDR was either ESTP or ENTP to my mind, but let's assume ENTP for this example. So it begins to look like all our Gray Champions may have been specifically ENTP.

If Americans invariably elect ENTPs as Gray Champions, does that indicate that ENTPs are best suited to perform the role or does it possibly reflect the fact that Nomads form the largest portion of the electorate when the Gray Champion is chosen? Could it be that our Gray Champions have always been ENTPs simply because Nomads had the greatest influence in choosing them? If this is true, then, in the absence of the Nomads, the Prophets would favor an ENFJ per your scheme. Similarly, the Heroes would favor an ENTJ. Regardless, it is pretty interesting that all our Gray Champions have shared the same or very similar temperaments.

Perhaps it takes an ENTP to arrive at the final synthesis of Prophet views and Nomad concerns. We end up with an ENTP, the favored hero archetype for Nomad voters, however this particular ENTP does not clearly follow the favored INTP philosophy of Nomads. He represents a synthesis of Prophet INFJ philosophy. Indeed he is a Prophet. He (ENTP) is an atypical Prophet (xxFJ) exhibiting the termperament regarded as heroic by Nomads specifically.

This Gray Champion theory could be a very serious load of BS but it is interesting to consider. There certainly are indications that a pattern exists.

I am going to skip the representatives of the Condensation and Feed stages for now but I did want to comment on one other thing. Is it fair to attach the scheme you developed to an entire generation or are these roles perhaps more representative of the first wavers in each generation? For example, I can clearly see the dominant xxFJ mood in first wave Prophets but it is not so clear that this specific mood persists in the last wave cohorts. Similarly, I can clearly see the dominant xxTP mood in first wave Nomads but it is not so clear that this mood persists in the last wave cohorts.

The clearest example of this possible distinction perhaps lies with the Silent Artists. Their xxFP preference was most clearly represented in the Beat movement. But were not most of the Beatniks first wave Silents? I do not see this mood as clearly in the last wave Silent.

I need to think about this some more. But if there is a shift between first wave and last wave, it would be important to isolate what exactly is going on in the last wave.

But this order does not correspond to the order of (the) saeculum. For example, the hero in the inner cycle precedes the nomad. So I am not sure that there is any value in assuming that a systematic process takes place within a generation. These assignments must reflect something else.

Yes I said so before. I think because Type is not a sequential process, it doesn't correspond to that process.

I think what we may be seeing here is the type of individual which a given generation is more apt to seek to perform a certain role. For example, a Nomad generation is probably more apt to respond to an INTP philosopher than any of the other three and it really does not matter whether the INTP philosopher is himself Nomad....

I think that's true.

Also I think since most of the MBTI types are combinations of two archetypes, it doesn't entirely matter which comes first. They can be grouped in several ways. In effect there are 7 MBTI types that have some traits of a generational type.

if we simply go by "inwardly-directed" and "outwardly-directed," then the nomad would be the IS type and the artist would be one of the E types. The hero would be the other E type. But doesn't the stereotypical nomad seem more extraverted than the stereotypical artist?

I would suggest that maybe inner-directed and introvert are not the same thing. Inner-directed in S&H terms means individualistic, outer-directed means communitarian. In the saecula, two of each follow successively, then they switch. But in the Type circle, the inner directed (prophet and nomad) are the vertical, opposite each other, and the outer-directed (hero and artist) the horizontal, opposite each other. In effect, most artists are introverted, but outer-directed, and nomads are extraverted, but inner-directed. Heros are extraverted and outer-directed; prophets are introverted and inner-directed. Being dominant and recessive is another thing entirely. Prophets and Heroes are dominant, and these are both J. Nomads and Artists are more passive and recessive, and both are P.

I suspect that the MBTI types correspond to all phases of a generation, but may go through a process in which one subtype (type within a type) is more emphasized. Perhaps you start with the most typical type (prophet/prophet INFJ, nomad/nomad ESTP, etc.), and go through the cycle from there. But it may be a different order than the "steam cycle" but may follow the sequence of the saeculum. The Type order is a schema for understanding how the types relate to each other, but not for how they follow from each other in time. So perhaps early wave nomads are predomonantly ESTP, but the second nomad wave are more ENTP (nomad/hero), the third nomad wave ISTP (nomad/artist), and the fourth wave INTP (nomad/prophet). How does that square with our experience of Generation X? It does seem for example that early 1970s Xers are more like artists. I have noticed they are less decisive, more "mellow", and so on. The late wavers may be more philosophical and optimistic than the very sharp-eyed, survival-oriented first wave.

Or it could be that the other three possible nomad types are involved in this cycle (ESTJ hero/nomad, then ESFP artist/nomad, and ESFJ prophet/nomad). Or both cycles at once!

Just checking these threads after a few days. Great discussion guys.

Stonewall, a few months ago I mentioned an article by the ABA that compared MBTI scores of lawyers with the general public. I recently came across it again. You might find this interesting given your discussion with Eric because IN lawyers frequently are called upon to generate public systems which are then "sold" by EN lobbyists and politicians.

Here are the numbers for informational purposes only:

Extraversion v. Intraverstion
Lawyers: 44%/56%
General Public: 75%/25%

Sensing v. Intuition:
Lawyers: 44%/56%
General Public: 70%/30%

Thinking v. Feeling:
All Lawyers: 77%/23%
Male Lawyers: 81%/19%
Female Lawyers: 66%/34%

General Public: 48%/52%
Males: 60%/40%
Females: 35%/65%

Judging v. Perceiving:
Lawyers: 63%/37%
General Public: 55%/45%

So, your typical lawyer is an INTJ. It is likely that we would find similar numbers among engineers, scientists, architects, college professors and others who are required to spend a lot of time thinking, reading, writing and analysing. Basically, this is where the INTs are.

On 2002-03-01 15:54, Neisha '67 wrote:

So, your typical lawyer is an INTJ. It is likely that we would find similar numbers among engineers, scientists, architects, college professors and others who are required to spend a lot of time thinking, reading, writing and analysing. Basically, this is where the INTs are.

My '67 brother, a patent lawyer, is ENTJ, but I think his E & I must be very close, because he's not super-outgoing.

On 2002-03-01 15:54, Neisha '67 wrote:
So, your typical lawyer is an INTJ. It is likely that we would find similar numbers among engineers, scientists, architects, college professors and others who are required to spend a lot of time thinking, reading, writing and analysing. Basically, this is where the INTs are.

Interesting post. However, this number cruncher here wants to point out that although the archetypical lawyer is an INTJ, I'm sure that there are more non-INTJ lawyers than INTJs.

For example, nearly half of all lawyers are "E" rather than "I" (not terribly surprising considering the show-offy aspect of certain fields of law, like trials).

Likewise, because of the detail involved in law, there must be a fair number of sensors. My work involves a fair amount of regulation citing, and my boss, who is an uber "S" excels at this kind of thing (I hate it!)

Although its hard to imagine a "P" being attracted to law, I can imagine that some "F"s may be attracted to the notion of helping people (example may be a divorce lawyer whose practice consists of women like herself who were left by men after many years of marriage for a trophy wife).

So please don't take the notion that if you are a lawyer, you must be an "INTJ" too seriously.

On 2002-03-03 08:13, Jenny Genser wrote:

Although its hard to imagine a "P" being attracted to law,

Actually, I think I read that ENTPs are generally the best trial lawyers. ESTPs are strong here as well. In fact, may of us Ps are attracted to the law. INTPs are by their very nature. But I suspect that you will find most INTPs cloistered around judgeships and law school faculties.

So please don't take the notion that if you are a lawyer, you must be an "INTJ" too seriously.

I'll bet that INTJs are concentrated in corporate and patent law. It would be interesting to see the type breakdown by legal field.

INTP: Ti Ne Si Fe
ENFJ: Fe Ni Se Ti

How would the Ti core of an INTP appear to an ENFJ, who uses it as her inferior function? And how would the INTP's Fe appear to an ENFJ?

I have never encountered an ENFJ. But for those INTPs who have, how does their Fe and Ti appear to you?

I thought of something interesting in an IM conversation I just had with Madscientist.

The F vs T function is not the most accurate indicator of which persons will overreact or become overemotional in a given situation. Rather, it is the P over the J function that determines this. There is also a paradox where in a stressful situation, a T type is actually more likely to become overemotional than an F. Let me explain what I mean.

A person who is F is naturally more emotional, in the sense that this part of themselves is well-developed, and they will not avoid getting into emotional situations, in fact they THRIVE on them. Emotional situations jumpstart their creativity, and give them a sense of purpose and aliveness. Because of this, F types have often learned how to sublimate their emotions and can actually appear calmer to outsiders than T types in stressful situations. As F is the creative type, they express their strong emotions *indirectly,* usually through some artistic endeavor.

A T type, disliking emotional situations, is not as well equipped to deal with stress or other negative feelings when they do crop up. At first they will try to become overcontrolled and suppress them since they make them so uncomfortable, but when the pressure becomes overwhelming, a T is actually more likely than an F to "explode"--that is, display such uncontrolled behavior as temper tantrums, sudden fits of tears, violent actions, and other forms of emotional meltdown. The F will probably retreat, and use their feelings to create something. Having strong emotions which they live in constantly, they had *better* learn to express them more indirectly, and usually do.

Take my son and myself, for example. Ian is an INTP, which means he is a thinker. He loves talking about intellectual things and is usually detached and unemotional. If you try to talk to him about his feelings, he changes the subject and refuses to discuss them. But when he is stressed or upset, watch out! He gets *really* upset, crying and throwing things.

Now obviously I am older and more mature than Ian is, but wait. I'm an INFP, but even as a child I *seemed* more controlled emotionally. When I was upset, I became very quiet and "spooky", and would draw pictures and write stories for them. I don't avoid emotional situations, I thrive on them actually, finding they make life more interesting. It is hard for a T to identify with that. When stressed, I have noticed that NF types tend to become grumpy, nitpicking, or critical. This is true of myself--while I don't show this much online, when stressed in person I can get very snappish. But I never throw tantrums and dont even cry much. Robert has proposed that the reason for this is that INF types, when stressed, exercise their inferior Te function. Grumpiness or creativity are both functions of the Te function. INT types, on the other hand, would display their inferior Fe function, becoming what most regard as "overemotional" or out of control. Outsiders thereofre may believe erroneously that an INT is "more emotional" than an INF, simply because they are less equpped to control that part of themselves when it is activated.

Now, as far as the J vs P indicating overemotional reactions--J types dislike chaos or disorder of any type, and emotional meltdowns are definitely in the chaotic category! So a J, whether F or T, will tend to try to suppress their reactions and remain "in control" of the situation. A P type would feel less uncomfortable with this sort of thing, and are therefore more likely to not only appear emotional to others, but to be more tolerant of excess emotion in others as well.

If what I've come up with here hsa any validity, then the NTP (when stressed) would appear to others as more emotional than either an NFJ or an NTJ, and probably even more so than an NFP.

I am not sure how all this applies to ES types, as I have not studied them much. I hope this makes sense though.

On 2002-03-03 13:10, Susan Brombacher wrote:

If what I've come up with here hsa any validity, then the NTP (when stressed) would appear to others as more emotional than either an NFJ or an NTJ, and probably even more so than an NFP.

This is true. Each type has that ordering of four functions from dominant to inferior. The inferior is the least developed and the most undisciplined. Anybody who has F as their fourth (inferior) function has the least developed feeling function. Accordingly, they are most likely to fly into a rage because they have the least control over their emotions.

INTPs and ISTPs have inferior Fe. ENTJs and ESTJs have inferior Fi. I am not sure how Fe and Fi manifest differently in this respect, if at all. But for an INTP (and probably an ISTP), you learn with age to recognize when a situation is going to really piss you off and you disengage ("a man must know his limitations"). And of course you acquire greater control anyway with age and maturity.

If the inferior Fi is different than inferior Fe in this respect, then use Marc Lamb as an example since he is an ESTJ. My guess is that the inferior Fi is even harder to control than inferior Fe. But then Vince Lamb is ENTJ and would be similar to Marc in this respect. However I don't think I have ever seen Vince lose his cool. So I do not know.

I am not sure how all this applies to ES types, as I have not studied them much.

ESTJ has inferior Fi.

Here's another link to a website that attempts to correlate the MBTI types with the Enneagram types:

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/jgeldart.html

The 9 Enneagram types are correlated with the MBTI types as follows (Richards, Flautt, Baron):

2 ESFJ, ENFJ, ESFP, ENFP, ISFP
3 ESTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ESTJ
4 INFP, INFJ
5 INTP, ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ
6 ISFJ, ESFJ
7 ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ENFP
8 ENTJ, ESTJ, ENTP
9 ISFP, INFP
1 ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ENTJ, INFJ

Also, if anyone is interested in seeing what a particular MBTI type might *look* like, see the personality profiles on http://www.socionics.com

There's some laughable stuff here, but it's intriguing just the same.
_________________
Labels tell you where the box is coming from and where it is headed and are quite helpful. They do not tell you what's inside though they might indicate "fragile", "handle with care", "this is not a Bill", "magnetic medium", etc.--VIRGIL K. SAARI

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Susan Brombacher on 2002-03-03 18:32 ]</font>

On 2002-03-03 09:53, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Actually, I think I read that ENTPs are generally the best trial lawyers. ESTPs are strong here as well. In fact, may of us Ps are attracted to the law. INTPs are by their very nature. But I suspect that you will find most INTPs cloistered around judgeships and law school faculties.

FWIW, I am ENTP and I very seriously considered becoming a lawyer (which, by the way, I kind of wish that I had done). Instead I chose social work . . . in a forensic (read, legal population) mental health unit.

I feel like I know the criminal mind very well - how this translates into MBTI theory, however, I have no idea!

Jenny, Stonewall, you guys are both right. My husband and I both did stints as associates at large law firms. I would say that about 40-50% of lawyers at large firms are INTJs or ISTJs. They have the best grades (and so get hired by the big firms) and are great at sitting down and writing a 50 page appellate brief or going through a room full of documents for a large transaction. They are the behind-the-scenes backbone of the firm, the "laboring oars." However, and this is a big "however," the managing partners tended to be ESTJs or ENTJs. The top jury trial lawyers and rainmakers, almost without exception, were ENTPs.

Every firm has at least one ENTP alpha lawyer, and they are not all men either. Kurt and I have both worked for ENTP alpha women. And they are all amazingly similar in their workstyles. Basically, they have their idea generators running at all times and tend to suck a lot of people into their cases. They run large cases and need lots of bodies on hand because they are likely to have a sudden flash of brilliant creativity at the last minute which requires everyone to re-do everything! It's both tremendously exciting and a total nightmare to be on one of their cases. Donna is this you?

Robert, I once worked for an ENFJ and it was heaven! He was totally sensitive to the needs of his staff, but also totally organized and extremely visionary. He had lots of ideas, like an ENTP, but he was also realistic about how much time it would take to implement them. Because he was an extravert he was also very high-energy and attuned to the political scene of the larger organization, which was really useful. All in all a great combo in a boss.

Hey I have a question for all you fellow visual thinkers. Do you have trouble distinguishing left and right? This is a concept I have never grasped -- my brain simply does not divide the world into "left" and "right." I don't think I am dyslexic, I have never had problems reversing letters or difficulty in school or any other symptom of dyslexia. I just don't think in terms of left and right. It could be because I am left-handed. It also could be because I think in three dimensions and tend to automatically rotate things in my head, to get a better sense of them, so things on the "right" don't really stay on the right, if this makes sense. I need to visualize things and then view them from all angles. On the other hand, I have no difficulty with East and West, and am generally great at reading maps, directions, etc. Anyone else with this going on?

Stonewall, you asked whether there was a breakdown by legal specialty. In the narrative portion of the article I mentioned they went into a bit more detail along those lines.

Here's what they said:

Torts and insurance, litigation and labor law attracted significantly more extraverts. Fifty-three percent of labor lawyers preferred extraversion, the highest percentage. Work setting matters. Sixty-four percent of government lawyers preferred introversion.

Sensors preferred: general practice (54%); real estate (57%); tax/trusts/estates (57%).

Intuitives prefered: criminal law (64%); labor law (67%); and litigation (65%).

In terms of work setting, 78% of judicial clerks and 74% of legal aid and public defenders were intuitives. Not surprisingly 75% of military lawyers are sensors.

There aren't a whole lot of feeler lawyers in general, but 44% of female labor lawyers are feelers and 41% of female litigators are feelers. The percentage of male feelers in the areas of general practice, criminal law and family law is 28%.

Lawyers are also disproportionately Js. Legal aid lawyers and public defenders are the only lawyers with more Ps than Js (57% P). Labor lawyers are 47% perceivers, criminal lawyers are 43% P, general practice lawyers are 42% P, and litigators are 42% P.

No breakdown by specific type.

I work at legal aid. I spent three years as a staff attorney and am now doing development/PR type stuff. I haven't had as great a sense of type as I did when I worked at law firms because at legal aid people work more independantly and tend to have their own case-loads. What I can tell you is that, because people work independantly, there is more tolerance of different types. You just don't get as annoyed by the personality quirks of others when you are not working on the same case. But, like most law offices, legal aid is chock full of NTs of all kinds.

One final thing that I wanted to mention about the article on lawyers and type is that, according to the article, lawyers are expected to use all eight functions at various times in their careers. Some lawyers even use all eight functions at the same time, such as in the case of the sole practitioner. The authors theorized that so much use of inferior functions is the source of widespread lawyer disatisfaction.

On 2002-03-03 13:35, Stonewall Patton wrote:

If the inferior Fi is different than inferior Fe in this respect, then use Marc Lamb as an example since he is an ESTJ. My guess is that the inferior Fi is even harder to control than inferior Fe. But then Vince Lamb is ENTJ and would be similar to Marc in this respect. However I don't think I have ever seen Vince lose his cool. So I do not know.

I usually don't lose my cool here, because the people are generally so reasonable. The worst I usually get is snide or cranky. However, I can recall one instance that took place pre-911 (before Stonewall joined) in which I took Brian Rush to task. Here's the link:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forums/...um=12&start=30

It's actually fairly mild and controlled--my anger was mostly for effect. If you really want to see me blow a gasket, you'll have to read rec.arts.marching.drumcorps, where I've won "Best Response to Flame" at least twice.

Here are some of my more flammable efforts:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vi...ich.edu&rnum=5

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vi...gle.com&rnum=1

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vi...eja.com&rnum=4

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vi...ich.edu&rnum=4

And here's a more recent effort:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=vi...gle.com&rnum=1

Enjoy!

Hey!! Us INTPs invented flaming! :wink:

One only needs to look at the history of the EMACS vs. VI flame wars.

On 2002-03-04 22:19, madscientist wrote:
Hey!! Us INTPs invented flaming! :wink:

One only needs to look at the history of the EMACS vs. VI flame wars.

Flaming is for people with little much else to do :smile:

On 2002-03-03 18:21, Susan Brombacher wrote:
The 9 Enneagram types are correlated with the MBTI types as follows (Richards, Flautt, Baron):

5 INTP, ISTP, INTJ, ISTJ

None of this looks like me, an ENTJ. However I'm only mildly extraverted. It also helps that I've worked on becoming an extravert ever since my teen years. I may originally have been an introvert, so I suppose that, without all my effort, I'd be an INTJ and thus would fit my Enneagram type.

What's really interesting are the usual ENTJ Enneagram types:

3 ESTP, ENTP, ENTJ, ESTJ
8 ENTJ, ESTJ, ENTP
1 ISTJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ENTJ, INFJ

When I take the RHETI test and enter in answers that correpond to my behavior online (and not in real life), I come out as a 3, not a 5! I guess I'm more status-seeking online!

Also, 8 is the direction of integration for being a 5 (i.e., I need to be more assertive and lead!). Finally, 1 is the archtypical ENTJ Enneagram type. It also happens to be in the direction of integration for 4. Hey Susan, time to become more rational and principled! Look, your MBTI type is even represented there, along with mine!

4 INFP, INFJ

Now for more comments:

6 ISFJ, ESFJ

If Marc's a 6, he's as atypical as I am!

7 ESTP, ESFP, ENTP, ENFP

Yep, Mike Alexander fits here! Don't know how Angeli is a 7, though.

9 ISFP, INFP

We don't have any dreamers here?


_________________
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vince Lamb '59 on 2002-03-04 23:31 ]</font>

On 2002-03-04 22:19, madscientist wrote:
Hey!! Us INTPs invented flaming! :wink:

:lol:

True, but an ENTJ knows a good thing when he sees it and quickly learns how to apply it!

One only needs to look at the history of the EMACS vs. VI flame wars.

*snicker*

UC Berkeley is known for the invention of two things--LSD and UNIX. This is not a coincidence!

_________________
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vince Lamb '59 on 2002-03-04 22:41 ]</font>

On 2002-03-04 22:36, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:


We don't have any dreamers here?

Sure, there are plenty of dreamers on this board! Type 4 is about as dreamy as you can get, and there are several on this board, including moi!

It's just that the INFPs on this board are more the Artist (4) type than the Peacemaker (9) type. I would guess you would find more Type 9 INFPs among Silents. Boomer and Xer INFPs are far too individualistic to be 9's.

On 2002-02-12 11:59, Stonewall Patton wrote:

I think this Enneagram clearly picks up different elements of who we are. But what is the thread linking consecutive types? And, if there is none, of what use is the Enneagram ultimately? Why even put the nine types in the order in which they are presented? I just do not get it.

I've been working on this from the perspective of parental orientation. I've found that some of the links between types work very well. A few are difficult and two in particular make absolutely no sense from that perspective.

Here's my analysis so far:

Hudson and Riso posit that each Enneagram type arises from a distinct parental orientation, in which one is either connected to, ambivalent about, or disconnected from ones nurturing figure (mother), protective figure (father), or both. Graphing this produces a 3x3 matrix:

........................Mother.....Both....Father
Connected to:.........3...........9..........6
Ambivalent about....8...........5..........2
Disconnected from..7...........4..........1

Some of the connections are obvious. 1 is right next to 2, 4 next to 5, and 7 next to 8. Hudson and Riso themselves note that these are the combinations that most reinforce each other. Also, some of the directions of integration and disintegration pop out. The 5 -> 8, 4 -> 1, 6 -> 9, and 9 -> 3 connections are right beside each other. Also, if one folds the matrix along the center column, then the connections between the extreme types on each level of orientation also appear (1 -> 7, 8 -> 2, and 3 -> 6--think of these directions of integration as getting in touch with your masculine or feminine side, as the case may be. :smile: )

However, to produce the circle of types described in the Enneagram, one has to connect to middle row to the top by moving diagonally up and to the right (8 -> 9, 5 -> 6, and 2 -> 3). This is a bit of a stretch, but doable, and it produces the 1-2-3, 4-5-6, and 7-8-9 connections around the edge of the Enneagram circle. Connecting these three segments then becomes difficult--one has to go diagonally down to the right from top to bottom. The easiest one is the 6-7 connection. I can easily imagine someone being connected to the father and disconnected from the mother without passing through the 5 in the center (remember the fold--this is now a triangular prism). However, I can't imagine the kind of parental orientation that would produce a 3-4 connection or a 9-1 connection. I can make ad hoc arguments about the 3-4 connection reflecting the interactions of ego and the "artistic temperment" and the 9-1 connection reflecting connections between different kinds of idealism, but I cannot make any connection between those two pairs that doesn't pass through another type on the way. Therefore, I see a theoretical problem with the order of Enneagram types based on parental orientation during development.

FWIW, the closest order I can get purely from parental orientation is 1, 2, 3, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, and then back to 1.

Now, using the concept of triads of thinking (head/superego), emotion (heart/ego), and instinct (gut/id), in which the order of types is overexpress, out of touch, underexpress does produce the correct order (2 overexpresses emotion, 3 is out of touch with emotion, 4 underexpresses emotion, 5 overexpresses thinking, 6 is out of touch with thinking, 7 underexpresses thinking, 8 overexpresses instinct, 9 is out of touch with instinct, and 1 underexpresses instinct) works extremely well (and note that the parental orientation connections tie each of these triads together!), but on the whole produces some relations that have little to do with what would be expected using parental orientation alone.

Hope this clarifies things!

_________________
"Dans cette epoque cybernetique
Pleine de gents informatique."


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Vince Lamb '59 on 2002-03-04 23:34 ]</font>

On 2002-03-04 22:39, Vince Lamb '59 wrote:

UC Berkeley is known for the invention of two things--LSD and UNIX. This is not a coincidence!

The psychedelic effects of LSD were discovered by chemist Albert Hofmann in Basel, Switzerland in 1943

On 2002-03-04 16:28, Neisha '67 wrote:

Hey I have a question for all you fellow visual thinkers. Do you have trouble distinguishing left and right?

Not usually. Sometimes I confuse left and right or east and west even though I am picturing the situation correctly in my mind, but I thought everybody did this occasionally. Then again, people who are not visual may remember left from right as a rule and never make this mistake. You may have a point.

This is a concept I have never grasped -- my brain simply does not divide the world into "left" and "right." I don't think I am dyslexic, I have never had problems reversing letters or difficulty in school or any other symptom of dyslexia.

Well, you do know that dyslexia is associated with ADD. So seeing as you exhibit ADD traits, you might be prone to exhibit dyslexic ones as well. I don't know anything about dyslexia but maybe you are describing elements of it. And it would logically relate to visual thinking given the ADD association with visual thinking and the NP and SP temperaments.