u/Fernaorok

The general consensus is that all subtypes of 9 are necessarily Sensing types in Socionics. For SP9 it's very obvious why. SO9 and SX9, on the other hand, do have a disconnection from their own preferences and feelings that can be related to Si, but it's not that straightforward, and especially SX9's bad relationship with its body is strange.

I've read some people saying that Naranjo's original description of 9 does not include any reference to Sensing that can rule out Intuitive types, but I also don't know to what extent that is true.

What do you think about the relationship between 9 and Sensing/Intuition, and most importantly, what are your arguments and how strongly do you think the original relationship between 9 and Sensing is Naranjo?

In Naranjo's book, it is said of all subtypes of E4 (in different ways) that they tend to feel unappreciated or make up problems in relationships, but once they feel as loved as they want, the devalue their partner, both because the E4 is always looking for something else to achieve and because this person must be of little value if they love the E4 (who has a bad image of themselves).

This behavior seems to fit the structure of E4, but it is also true that Naranjo tends to describe the worst possible version of a type, so I was wondering how much real people relate to it. E4s here, do you struggle to remain attached once a relationship seems stable / relationship goals are achieved / you feel valued enough? Also please state your subtype.

You don't need to do all of them.

EII SP6, EII SO4, EII SP4

ESI SP1, ESI SX4, ESI SP4

SX9 is prototypically SEI, which is Dynamic, Sensing and Irrational. Some people say it can be EII, which is the opposite in these three dichotomies, but this seems theoretically contradictory. How many of these dichotomies do you think truly contradict SX9, and what types other than SEI do you think fit? Is EII one of them?

I'm not asking if it can happen, but how frequent you think it is, mainly from real life experience/observation. Comments on any other Enneagram subtypes for EII are also welcome.

EII-Fi / EII-N

SP4

461

EVLF or EVFL

How would you say EII subtypes correlate with Enneagram?

For example (not saying it's right): EII-Fi is mostly SP1/SP4 and EII-Ne is mostly SP6/SX9.

How would you say EII subtypes correlate between systems and with Enneagram?

For example (not saying it's right): EII-Fi is Dominant/Normalizing and mostly SP1/SP4. EII-Ne is Creative/Harmonizing and mostly SP6/SX9.

Mention some people/characters whose type you're sure of but you think make for realistic, nuanced examples of it.

This is an argument for Gammas having the greatest distinction between their inner world and the outside, and Alphas making them interact the most.

NF (iNtuition + Feeling) IMEs are the internal ones and ST (Sensation + Thinking) IMEs are the external ones. This can be explained from a subject/object dichotomy. Thoughts and feelings (iNtuition + Feeling) are necessarily generated inside a person's mind, while space and logical laws (Sensation + Thinking) exist in the world itself and would exist even if it wasn't inhabited by humans. It must be kept into account that Intuition in Socionics is more related to thoughts than Thinking (or Logic), which has more to do with understanding systems and processes.

This makes Fi and Ni (internal + introverted) the most internal IMEs out of all, and Te and Se (external + extraverted) the most external ones. Fi creates emotions that stay inside a person's mind and obviously condition their behavior, but are not directly externalized. Ni generates thoughts that stay inside one's mind so they can be further analyzed and are usually not shared, it doesn't foster information exchange. Te understands and manipulates logic and processes without commiting to any of the laws or techniques used. Se acts and moves inside the space, modifying it regardless of what sensations this space brings back to the individual.

Fe, Ne (internal + extraverted), Ti and Si (external + introverted) are in the middle. Fe emotions are generated inside one's mind, but they're externalized and used to create emotions in others, while its effect inside the original person's mind is less permanent than Fi's. Ne ideas are also internally generated, but Ne disposes the individual towards information exchange, and ideas are quickly abandoned in favour of others, unlike the case of Ni. Ti takes a determined set of rules from the outer world and brings them inside to reflect deeply about them and either commit to or manipulate them, while ignoring how other information could be useful in given contexts, unlike Te which can use anything superficially. Si interacts with space to acquire desired sensations, which impact on the individual, and ignores how the individual could impact on reality if there's not an immediate pleasant sensorial feedback, unlike Se.

Alpha is the most open and easy-going, but also passive, Quadra, while Gamma is the most secretive and also the most hard-working and ready-to-act one in general terms. This can obviously be deducted just from looking at valued IMEs, but it's also a consequence of Alpha having the smallest division between the internal and external worlds, and Gamma having the biggest one.

What a Gamma feels and imagines is preferably kept inside if possible due to valued FiNi. Continuity of feelings and lines of thought is sought, with no intention to externalize them. Gammas value stable and deep personal relationships and show little emotional expression (Fi over Fe). They also value foresight and preparation, often do not reveal their intentions and hide information, and are not very curious (Ni over Ne). On the other hand, they desire to modify at their will both objects' movements and shapes due to valued TeSe, which makes them very connected to "the way things work", and show high professionalism and accountability, but these actions are only output. They don't want to commit to any system that they've mastered, because they're considered as tools (Te over Ti), and they don't expect to find peace and inner comfort from the material world (Se over Si). Thus, what is born inside remains inside, and what is born outside remains outside.

Alphas are the opposite: they need to externalize everything they create and internalize everything they receive in order to feel satisfied with it. Freedom of expression is the most important Alpha value, because, due to valued FeNe, they have a need to share their emotions (Fe over Fi) and ideas (Ne over Ni) and make them move as freely as possible. For this reason, Alphas experience a big sense of emptiness if their emotions and proposals (even if just theoretical) are not welcome. Conversely, they bear no desire to change the external world; instead, they want to understand and experience it, which makes them very calm, open and unambitious. Due to valued TiSi, knowledge from the objective world is only valued in relation to other knowledge and as a set of valuable ideas to maintain, never as a situationally useful tool (Ti over Te), while interaction with space and objects must influence the individual positively, not leave a mark on the space or the object (Si over Se). The individual opens their mind and lets the external world influence them simultaneously, and is not interested in anything that is isolated in either the external or the internal realm.

Beta and Delta basically have one axis of each: intuition and sensation are kept in their "natural place" in Betas and inversed in Deltas, while the opposite is true for ethics and logic.

I am EII in Socionics and SP4 in Enneagram. I relate completely to Delta values in Socionics and to the SP4 prototype, but I think I'm a bit more extraverted and have slightly better Se, Ne and Te than average EII. Probably worse Fe and Si.

I'm almost completely sure that I have 1E.

I don't think I have 3V. I can be ambitious and I usually want to be the best at what I do, but it never manifests as aggressivity or competitiveness against others. I'd say I'm 2V because I'm quite active especially for an EII, I set a lot of goals that I usually achieve and I'm good at inspiring and helping others. But I guess I could be 4V.

I'm 3F or 4F. I've always felt kind of uncomfortable in my body, but this has almost stopped after starting to do exercise. I worry about looks. I care about being in a beautiful place a lot. Whether a city is beautiful or not is my main criterion when considering moving.

I'm not sure about my L placement. I'm very curious and I want to learn about a lot of things. I like to argue peacefully. I can be critical of inconsistent arguments in other people. Most of the time I'm aware of what is and isn't logical, but I can make illogical decisions sometimes ignoring that I know I'm being irrational.

The only reason why I don't fully trust it is that I don't see how people's types could change between both models. Reading Model G EII, for example, it's not just that I feel identified, it looks like it's describing the exact same group of people as Model A EII.

Now, both systems overlapping wouldn't mean that Model G is redundant, it could simply be an extension of or different perspective on Models A types and in that case I'd be interested. But people changing type between these two models doesn't make sense to me given how similar the descriptions are. And if they were different enough to justify that, then I could consider that either Model A or G is right, but not both. If Socionics makes sense and oppositions between IMEs (which is what it's based on) actually happen in our minds (i.e. valuing Fi implies not valuing Ti, being strong at intuition implies being weak at sensing, etc.), then they must happen in a certain way and with a certain set of defined IMEs, not differently depending on somewhat different perspectives.

Edit: This looks like a rant against Model G but what I actually want to know is people's opinion on the compatibility between models. Does everyone consider them different theories where you can be typed differently, or is there anyone that agrees that both models describe the same types (and thus they can work as different perspectives on the same types)? And if both systems can be considered correct, compatible and matching in typings, then why are Model G types so unevenly distributted? I'm quite sure I don't know that many Beta rationals in Model A in real life, but I truly want to believe in Model G because it is actually interesting.

Edit 2: With "descriptions" I meant descriptions of the model, the placements and each specific IME+placement for EII, so basically the chart. I didn't mean type descriptions, sorry for the ambiguity.