u/higurashi0793

This is a genuine question, because the way people react to certain fanservice-y is very inconsistent sometimes.

For example, it's really easy to find something like skimpy outfits and we all agree that it's obvious objectification. I feel like 99% of those posts we unanimously agree that it's bad.

But it's when things that deviate from the common beauty standards get posted that some people let out their true colors. For example, objectification of women with muscular or fat body types.

In most posts (or at least the ones I've seen anyway), it gets a more divided response: those who point out that it's still objectification even if it's not a body type that's always presented as attractive, and the others who salivate because they're into it.

It's the same with objectification of men, some people see nothing wrong with it because they're being catered to.

So it gives me the impression that some people, even on this very sub, are only bothered by objectification when it's about something where they're not the intended audience. The moment something panders to them, it's okay.

There is a discrepancy between the things they claim to be against, and the way they react to them.

So it makes me wonder, are you really against objectification or you just don't like it because you don't get to benefit from it? If more men were objectified the same way women are, would that solve the problem? Because I've seen people say that's the issue and not that objectification is happening in the first place.

As the title says, I got my first switch today, and it seems like it was an import from Japan. It seems to come with a code to redeem 30 days of nintendo switch online. But the code doesn't seem to work when I put it in to redeem.

My account is from the americas. Is there a workaround this or is this code lost?

https://www.reddit.com/r/infj/s/50Xql5ptWB

Currently the sub doesn't allow for picture/gif replies, I am not sure why. But today the r/INFJ sub said they'd be letting people use gif in replies for a while.

I think it's a great idea! What do you guys think? Also, mods, would you consider it? I'd love image and gifs replies, but if we only get gif that's okay too.

Reading about E9 childhood wound, the wound of not being seen, I remembered many instances in my childhood where I felt alone and abandoned.

For most of my childhood, I had only my older sister to rely on. She was the one always looking after me, and occasionally my mom would joke about how my sister was practically my mom instead. I know this is awful, but I come from an abusive and dysfunctional family, so these things were common.

I remember an incident back when I was a kid. I threw a tantrum during a family trip because I saw my mom being very friendly and kind to other children, and it made me upset. Why did she treat other people's children way better than her own? We always got compared, yelled at, criticized, or ignored. Yet when it came to other children, she had gifts always ready and was friendly towards them. I kept thinking "why them, and not me?"

One of the things I've always had a hard time recognizing in the enneagram were the childhood wounds. My childhood wasn't the best, but I can't pinpoint exactly what was the thing that stood out the most.

I have been thinking of ways I've never felt seen. I was always left alone with my brother and sister. My brother was abusive, and because of him, I was sent to the hospital multiple times. Needless to say, we've been not in speaking terms for decades. As far as I know, I had only one sister, who I was stuck with regardless of what either of us wanted.

There is an age gap between me and my siblings, so my sister was a teenager when I was a small child. I knew she resented having to look after me, and by extension, resented me as well. And I knew from an early age, deep in my heart, that I felt lonely. I felt like nobody wanted me. Neither my parents, neither my sister, neither the people that surrounded me.

I remember a drawing I made when I was in kindergarten. On the left side, there was me, holding a bouquet of flowers, dropping it on the floor, and on the right side, a group of people I was looking at sadly, from the distance.

So there has always been this feeling that I'm on my own. Even the person who was my designated parent, my sister, wanted to live her life without being stuck raising me (completely understandable). I had to learn many things on my own: how to dress, how to shave, how to behave in public, how to manage my finances, how to take the bus, etc. In this sense, I also raised myself, and while I was sad that I had no adults to guide me, I was also proud of myself for becoming resourceful and cunning.

But this also came with a deep loneliness. I had no tribe, and I always felt as if I could only look at groups from the distance. Even when I seemingly found a friend group, I could never shake the feeling that I was the outsider. Everyone else already knew each other for much longer, and had experiences together way before I arrived. I felt like a character arriving in season 3 of a show.

And yet, when someone tried to get close to me, I was incredibly clumsy. I've always found myself being good at handling groups, but when it comes to getting close to individuals, I was a mess. The moment I perceived someone's interest in me, a thousand anxieties invaded me, worrying about whether I'm boring them, if I did or said something wrong, when will they get tired and leave, etc. It was incredibly difficult to lower my guard or open up. I've found dealing with individuals far more exhausting than dealing with groups.

And so, I always had this feeling of not belonging anywhere like a thorn on my side. Sometimes I get tired of the loneliness, and weight of it, and sometimes I try to distract myself with anything to forget that feeling for a while, since I can't do much about it.

I think there has always been some resentment and anger at my situation. I was angry at my parents for neglecting me, for denying me proper guidance and leaving me and my sister to figure things out. I was angry that they only bothered to show up when they had to demand something or criticize something about me. I never felt like they had any interest in me. I was angry thinking about all the troubles I could have saved myself if I had someone to teach me, instead of stumbling in the dark. I resented my extended family for knowing about what was happening and doing nothing about it.

I don't know if my resentment can be equated to anger, though.

But yeah, I see a lot of my childhood in the 9 wound, now that I think about it. I was wondering if neglect is also a part of other 9's childhood, if you guys are comfortable talking about it?

In his book "Psychospiritual Laziness", Naranjo talks about all the E9 subtypes. I wanted to make a post about each of them. This is not a translation or transcription of the text, just my general understanding of it and paraphrasing certain parts.

Naranjo begins describing SP9 (or just conservation 9, as he calls it) by showing a duality of sorts within them. On one hand, they indulge in things like food, drugs, tv shows or alcohol, in an attempt to escape from a deep pain within themselves. A feeling of being hopeless, inadequate, or having something that they cannot forgive about themselves. As a result, they cannot connect with themselves or others, as they desperately try anything to forget about this pain in their souls.

An sp9 talks about their tobacco addiction, and how they used it to cover up their own pain. They could run through 2 packs a day. They talk about going to the cinema, as as soon as the movie is over, they're already thinking of having a smoke.

On the other hand, sp9 have a strong survival instinct. They are adept at securing everything they need to survive: money, food, work, housing, etc. This is all in order to continue with their lives.

The sp9 has these two sides within them: one that indulges to the point of self-destruction, the other who wants to survive at all costs. They are torn between two roles: the victim, and the survivor.

The sp9 is harsh and unforgiving towards themselves. They criticize and belittle themselves, while also drowning in self-pity. It's all in an act of not wanting to see the full picture, and not wanting to dive deeper into themselves, by only focusing on their flaws.

In its own self-indulgence, the sp9 is incapable of doing things that are beneficial for themselves. They let themselves go, carried by their self-destructive tendencies, and avoid taking action and doing what's good for them.

After a long day at work, an SP9 seeks to satisfy themselves with wine or food, avoiding others, as they cannot form meaningful relationships with others so as long as they cannot connect with themselves. This leads to isolation and a solitary life. And so, they replace the pleasure of being with others with things like objects or food.

An sp9 talks about how, when they felt sad, and there was nobody they felt they could share their sadness with, they'd play the guitar or play songs on the radio while drinking.

For the sp9, conflict doesn't exist. And if it does, they run away.

To others, sp9 can invoque two different impressions: the first one of tranquility and peace, as they look outwardly serene, because of their slow and inexpressive demeanor. On the other hand, this very demeanor can be unsettling to other people, who might perceive it as sketchy and weird. Naranjo describes this as a defense mechanism in order to avoid anything that could cause any competition among peers.

While all E9 subtypes share an aspect of dependency, sp9 projects a false independence. An sp9 puts a bandage on a wound before the wound is even there. They can't be rejected if they never sought to be accepted in the first place. And so, the sp9 isolates themselves to avoid recognizing how much they need others.

The sp9 has a hard time taking responsibility for their own thoughts. They always need a point of reference, or to consult with someone they deem more of an expert than they are.

And so, the sp9 lives between two extremes: on one extreme, there's the self-indulgence where everything is done to forget about pain and themselves. On the other extreme, there's the fierce desire to live, and with it, all their loneliness and self-loathing.

They are impulsive, often doing things hurriedly and without giving a second thought, in an attempt to feel alive. In this, they're seen as reckless, convincing themselves they have everything under control, but not having any real plan in mind. This is the one that can be easily confused with E8.

Out of all the E9 subtypes, they are the most energetic. But this energy is not directed towards anything meaningful, rather, it only makes them feel invincible, that they are capable of anything. And it's not consistent, and once this burst of energy is spent, they return to their previous state, not learning anything about themselves because they don't want to examine what happened.

I'll be making another posts about the characteristics and neurotic needs of the sp9.

I've been wanting this book for a long time. It was one of Naranjo's last publications before he passed away. I know people online rely on Character and Neurosis because it's more widely available, but Naranjo kept updating his views on types beyond that, so I think our understanding of types and subtypes may be flawed.

I will make an AMA post when I get it. Most of Naranjo's new books don't have english translations, and I am hispanic, so I'll do my best to answer any questions about Psychoespiritual Laziness.

I am also curious to know how different are his views on this book compared to Character and Neurosis. Character and Neurosis was published in 1990, and Psychoespiritual Laziness was published in 2018. These books are nearly 30 years apart, so I'm excited to see if there's a more refined definition of E9 and its subtypes.

I have thought about scanning this book to provide an online version, since none of Naranjo's recent books have a digital version, but that won't be happening anytime soon.

I'm honestly hyped, this books talks not only about E9 as a type, but also subtypes, so I hope to help other so/sx/sp E9 better understand their type.

Edit: the book will arrive in around two weeks, for anyone wondering.

Usually, when it comes to correlations, people are stuck in two opposite extremes: either any MBTI can be any enneagram, or only a few types can be certain enneagrams. I think both stances are wrong for different reasons.

1. Any combination works!: I'll set up an example for this: Introverted Feeling and Enneagram 2. Enneagram 2 is described as a type that wants to be loved above all, and to achieve this, they deeply attune themselves to the needs and wants of people in hopes that they will be loved in return.

On the other hand, Introverted Feeling is a function that disregards the objective, external world in favor of the personal, subjective values. They are not interested in involving themselves with the external world and reel away from it.

So how do you reconcile two diametrically opposing concepts? I have a hard time picturing an INFP whose Fi reels away from the external world, but at the same time, attunes to what people want to earn love. So either you disregard the external and rely on your inner world, or focus on the external world and mold yourself to it. You can't have both.

And in this case, the "but it's a different system!" argument doesn't apply because the two mindsets presented by Jung and Enneagram don't work together. Yes, Jungian is a system that focuses on cognition, but certain attitudes can be seen reflected in both. Jung describes certain attitudes and mindsets that can be observed in certain types, and you can see how they clash with certain Enneagram concepts.

2. Only X MBTI can be Y Enneagram: this is the other extreme of this argument, and I find it just as misguided as the first one. It's plagued with biases and cherry picking. It also suffers from people misunderstanding both Enneagram and MBTI.

Most people use Naranjo's correlations from Character and Neurosis to back up their arguments as to why certain types can or can't be certain enneagrams.

I have read Character and Neurosis, and Naranjo lists the correlations of each enneagram in the "Antecedents in the Scientific Literature on Character" section. This section is just that: a section that shows content from other authors who are related to his Enneagram work. Nowhere does he say that one Jungian type can *only* be a certain Enneagram. If anything, he only talks about how certain functions and types resemble his enneagram system, so more than a strict set of rules, it's more like a suggestion of what could work well together.

And also, remember that Character and Neurosis is a really old, outdated book. This was published in 1994. Naranjo kept working on Enneagram until his passing in 2019. Most of his recent books aren't officially translated into English, but I assure you, they give a much better view of the types.

Another thing I want to point out with this is the bias. When people list correlations, most of the time, you can see an obvious favoritism. I've seen Ni types cover almost every enneagram type, while other types get, at most, 3 or 2 possible combinations. And that's not even counting people who focus on subtypes as well.

I've seen lists where INFJ can be: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 1. Meanwhile, ENFJ can be either 2 or 3. And so on with other types.

People who make these lists are rarely objective about it. You can see the types they like the most by how versatile they make them out to be (usually their own). And the types that they don't care much to understand fall into a few enneagrams at most.

Taking my own type as an example, people usually list ENFJ as only 2 or 3, but 9 and 1 also work very well with it, and there's nothing in them that directly opposes Extroverted Feeling. The few arguments I've seen rely mostly on "b-b-but Naranjo said so!" and petty semantics, rather than an actual reason as to why these can't work together. On the other side, I have a really hard time picturing an ENFJ 8 or ENFJ 5 because both 5 and 8 are enneagrams that either reel away or oppose the external world, and care the least about external harmony.

So yeah, not all combinations work. A lot of them do, though. But people who go to the opposite extreme are also being pedantic about what can work or not.

There is a more reasonable middle point in which anything that doesn't directly contradict each other can work.