Am I a 1w9 or a 4w3? | INFJ Forum

Am I a 1w9 or a 4w3?

Griffinheart

Community Member
Jun 23, 2020
202
853
952
Brocéliande
MBTI
INFP
Enneagram
6w5
I'm back after a hiatus. Needed time to readjust to the natural world.

So I've been thinking of this recently and I haven't come to any conclusions yet. So I know the Enneagram deals with motivations for your actions yet the topical behaviours associated with them confuse me at times. In my case, I relate very strongly to some of the traits of Type 4 yet I feel like my primary motivation is very 1ish.

I know it's not common for INFPs to be typed as 1, but when I first took the Enneagram test on Truity, I answered as honestly as possible without any prior knowledge of the Enneagram and I got Type 1. I thought it was relatively accurate.

I just need help understanding this.

Why I think I maybe Type 4:
  1. I tend to ruminate on my purpose and identity in this world. Not so much who I am at my core (I honestly don't know/understand that) but more in how I can justify my existence here.
  2. I'm in touch with my feelings particularly in generating feelings of heroism/triumph. I listen to the Halo OST in order to feel this.
  3. I usually question my actions/work based off my initial judgement of them from an internal value system (maybe a 1 trait??). I usually have to feel like what I'm doing matters in the grand scheme of things.
  4. I can be emotionally incontinent and have broken down emotionally before. Been very reactive and vengeful in the past.
  5. I can be sensitive to people's demeanor at work (can't stand it when people are frowning and being sour all the time).
  6. I have a hard time relating to most people with how I think and do things (though I suspect that's my Aspergers?).
  7. I want to be seen as worthy in the eyes of people I respect (like my BJJ instructor, after being singled out for coming in late).
Why I think I maybe Type 1:
  1. I'm highly perfectionistic with high standards for myself and those around me. I have a hard time tolerating degeneracy.
  2. I strive to fulfill some kind of sacred duty/purpose. I try and justify my existence here by dedicating myself to a trade/vocation that is of value and can be of use to people (questioning whether this is a 4 trait or a 1 trait??).
  3. I question my identity (4s are known for having a strong sense of who they are?) and rather justify it through action than simply being.
  4. I can't make autonomous decisions unless the rules clearly state otherwise.
  5. I strive to be a moral, competent and reliable man despite my flaws and shortcomings.
  6. I've always seen things in black and white. When I was a hardcore Christian in my earlier days, I tried forcing my mother and friends to convert in order to save them from Hell.
  7. Love order and structure in my day (I don't always get that but when I do, it feels comforting and motivating).
  8. I constantly question whether what I said/did was the right thing. Very self critical.
Anyway, that's all I can think of right now. What do you think I am? If there's anything you want to know in order to make a fairer assessment, ask and ye shall have it. For those whom initially knew me when I came here, I was under stress, so please don't base your judgements of me on first impressions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K and Ginny
As I understand it, being a type 1 INFP would be incredibly rare, even moreso than a type 1 INFJ and I've not come across one that I can remember.

ISTJs are fairly commonly type 1.

I'd examine the wings more closely and the paths of integration/disintegration
 
"I'd examine the wings more closely and the paths of integration/disintegration
I've been doing that for a long time. Nothing seems to stick out at me.

Considering there are 7 billion people in the world, even if INFP type 1s make 0.01%, that's still 70,000 000 people. Since humans are so complex and nuanced, I wouldn't be surprised if I was Type 1.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K and Ginny
Funny cause from what I've gathered, INFJ type 1s are quite common yet people still say they're rare.

Common where? In discord (where I'm mostly am..) I've only met like a few whom I think are really 1s. Can't say it's common but can't say it's rare either. But I don't know much.. a lot of online communities specially related to mbti, have more of not so healthy individuals who try to fit in wherever they could or where they feel accepted or can easily adapt to.

I followed wyote's advise on the integration and disintegration. And then went to read more and had been tested, interviewed and typed by a lot of people and it always ends up as 1w2.
 
Common where? In discord (where I'm mostly am..) I've only met like a few whom I think are really 1s. Can't say it's common but can't say it's rare either. But I don't know much...
I see a lot of INFJs on Personalty Database as Type 1.

I followed wyote's advise on the integration and disintegration. And then went to read more and had been tested, interviewed and typed by a lot of people and it always ends up as 1w2."
Fair. Where'd you get tested?
 
I used to be in enneagram discord server. But I'm not sure if it's still existing. You can ask @charlatan he's the one who's helped me a whole LOT with enneagram. :)
Thank you, my friend :)
 
The thing I am big on is to focus on the fact that not every formulation of the different typologies (Jungian typology, enneagram, etc) is the same. People can certainly say they are getting at the same thing and pick the one which captures the ideas best, but at least on the face of it, the systems are different -- so for the Jungian typology world, Jung, Myers-briggs and socionics are all at least in the strictest sense not the same, though one can do additional work and potentially argue there's a version of Jungian typology with most advantages.

I've found versions of both that I most prefer, though I remain open to the insights of other ways of organizing the ideas. So keep that in mind / that I do not mean the following is the only way.

My emphasis on enneagram is on what I'd call the most conceptual point of view on it I know of -- the one that makes it seem least random why the types are what they are.
And this point of view basically says how you get the types is you have the head-heart-gut centers and you can combine them in different ways, and each type is based on grappling with and balancing the conflicts of the neighbors.
E.g. 4's focus on the uniqueness of personal identity combines the estrangement of 5 from the world and the image type concerns of 3.
It is the blend of image type and head type concerns (but which leans image type). As with all age types, 4's concern is primarily to not be without worth and significance, but more so than the other image types, 4 feels doubt and anxiety about the very question. Where 2's issues tend to be more around merging one's need to have significance with meeting the needs of others, which explains the proximity to 9, the 4's issues are around how the worth ties back to one's actual identity -- if the 4 achieves something, sure the achievement has signficance, but if someone else could've done the same thing, how is this speaking to MY significance?
Whereas 1 is a gut-image type.

Generally, the way I understand it is the gut center types tend to hold both the image and head type concerns at bay with 9 the "purest" version of this strategy --- its strength being that you maintain harmony and balance, and the weakness being that this can lead to repression of one's sense of self when carried to an extreme (.which resembles its neighbor 8's repression of feelings of vulnerability).

Enneagram 1 is fittingly the "most image type-y" of the gut types, with closest proximity to the image type 2, which is why we often see them needing to maintain a feeling they are in the right (but struggling with self-criticality). Their difference from image types is I think their focus on perfection is still more impersonal -- for e.g. it isn't just about their own imperfections but simply seeing things not being as they should be everywhere and looking to change that (or looking to preserve things as they should be).
When a 1 aims to meet a standard, I don't see it as their primarily thinking this awards them significance -- after all, they think everything should meet their standards, and if anything their strategy represses the image type anxiety regarding how *their being as they should be* matters in the end.

So they really have quite different vibes. Without picking on any of them more than the other....
Gut types tend to if anything be a little too smug about what the standards should be, or via falling asleep to the issues/pretending nothing is wrong, or maintaining a sense they can't be taken down, if we were to criticize.... head types at their worst spiral into doubt and getting tangled and stuck in indecision (which can lead to resigning if there's anything worth getting too close to or investing in a-la 5.....or getting tired with things / suddenly going from excitement to boredom at 7).....and image types can get locked in shame and grief at not mattering.
 
Bestrice Chestnut describes the wings very well as well as the core types in their instinctual variants. I read her book last year and it has added some knowledge about how I can confirm the stacking for myself. I maintain that I am a 147, 1w2 being the dominant. @charlatan 's description in the last bit really vibed with me too.

It took a long time to find out which I am, 1 or 4. I had fluctuauted because I was having a trying time, because I was in some emotional turmoil and always reacted badly - with anger when I was hurt. That's what originally indicated 1 to me, not because of perfectionism, but because of the deep-seated anger that I'm never good enough and don't matter. When I'm balanced, I feel fairly little in intensity and I'm more driven to explore intellectual pursuits as well as just to have fun, with a few manic spikes. That's how I knew my sweet spot is 1, and I grow into 7 whereas I disintegrate into 4. It's difficult in its own right too because even when I'm not growing or disintegrating the two are still a part of me. Something I consider my second sin is that I am hellbent on mapping myself completely, which I consider ego-centred sometimes, but when I stopped worrying about that I found the goal was to become a better me. 1 again.

It's best to keep statistics out of it, just so there is no bias developing over rarity. I rejected 1 at first because I am probably the most lazy 1 there is. But when I read about the cerebral perfectionism that creates inaction, that's where I was truly at home.


This was mostly about me, but I hope my story can help you narrow it down. My first thought at seeing your OP and thread title was "why not both?" ;)
 
What do you think I am? I
I don't know you well enough to make any kind of call on your E type, Griffin. I took a long time to settle on my own and it was only when I picked up Don Riso's detailed descriptions of each Type/Wing combination that I was able to identify with one of them clearly. Something that I found helpful was to look at the weaknesses of each type, which often have a different flavour to the very healthy behaviours. Riso describes behaviour for each of the nine Enneagram type in terms of nine distinct health levels (ie 81 altogether). This table pulls out level 6 for each type - it's the lower end of the average health band so is spotlighting the normal weaknesses in each type. Below that and it starts to run into possible significant mental health issues which make things a lot more complicated, and I find it's less helpful in trying to type myself and others. The concept is dynamic, which means that we all move fluidly between the health levels all the time - I suspect most of us spend our time in the four levels between the lower end of healthy (level 3) through to the lower end of average as described in this table.

One thing that strikes me is that there may well be more people around who are E6 than see themselves as that type. That's consistent with Richard Rohr's view as well which is that more than half the folks in some communities are type 6.

Level 6 Behaviours for each Type.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ginny
I'm back after a hiatus. Needed time to readjust to the natural world.

So I've been thinking of this recently and I haven't come to any conclusions yet. So I know the Enneagram deals with motivations for your actions yet the topical behaviours associated with them confuse me at times. In my case, I relate very strongly to some of the traits of Type 4 yet I feel like my primary motivation is very 1ish.

I know it's not common for INFPs to be typed as 1, but when I first took the Enneagram test on Truity, I answered as honestly as possible without any prior knowledge of the Enneagram and I got Type 1. I thought it was relatively accurate.

I just need help understanding this.

Why I think I maybe Type 4:
  1. I tend to ruminate on my purpose and identity in this world. Not so much who I am at my core (I honestly don't know/understand that) but more in how I can justify my existence here.
  2. I'm in touch with my feelings particularly in generating feelings of heroism/triumph. I listen to the Halo OST in order to feel this.
  3. I usually question my actions/work based off my initial judgement of them from an internal value system (maybe a 1 trait??). I usually have to feel like what I'm doing matters in the grand scheme of things.
  4. I can be emotionally incontinent and have broken down emotionally before. Been very reactive and vengeful in the past.
  5. I can be sensitive to people's demeanor at work (can't stand it when people are frowning and being sour all the time).
  6. I have a hard time relating to most people with how I think and do things (though I suspect that's my Aspergers?).
  7. I want to be seen as worthy in the eyes of people I respect (like my BJJ instructor, after being singled out for coming in late).
Why I think I maybe Type 1:
  1. I'm highly perfectionistic with high standards for myself and those around me. I have a hard time tolerating degeneracy.
  2. I strive to fulfill some kind of sacred duty/purpose. I try and justify my existence here by dedicating myself to a trade/vocation that is of value and can be of use to people (questioning whether this is a 4 trait or a 1 trait??).
  3. I question my identity (4s are known for having a strong sense of who they are?) and rather justify it through action than simply being.
  4. I can't make autonomous decisions unless the rules clearly state otherwise.
  5. I strive to be a moral, competent and reliable man despite my flaws and shortcomings.
  6. I've always seen things in black and white. When I was a hardcore Christian in my earlier days, I tried forcing my mother and friends to convert in order to save them from Hell.
  7. Love order and structure in my day (I don't always get that but when I do, it feels comforting and motivating).
  8. I constantly question whether what I said/did was the right thing. Very self critical.
Anyway, that's all I can think of right now. What do you think I am? If there's anything you want to know in order to make a fairer assessment, ask and ye shall have it. For those whom initially knew me when I came here, I was under stress, so please don't base your judgements of me on first impressions.

Well, if we separate the cognitive functions and dichotomy, would you be still "INFP" (actually, Fi-dom & INFP to be more precise) on both? (actually, people use Fi-dom as INFP and Ni-dom as INFJ but in Jung typology and Socionics follows it, Ni-dom is a P and Fi-dom is a J) I highly suspect you would not... And that makes a big difference here for type 1.

Jung J vs P is a matter of having T/F function as primary (Jung J) or N/S as primary (Jung P).
MBTI on 20th century and the community uses a stack and uses former extraverted function of that of that stack to decide J/P, for their stack the former function is Ne, they nominate P.
MBTI on 21th century had mostly dropped the functions and included facets, probably due to the influence from Costa & MCRae from Big 5, so they only use the dichotomy to decide whatever you are a J vs P. Their J vs P isn't that much deep, actually, it can be resumed into these two pictures but there is the facets as well:

a4f913f28965e682e58c81ecb52139d1.png


b8758f284e578c189de970ab9fca34ee.jpg


Here are, from PC, the descriptions of the J/P facets:

The Judging-Perceiving Facets


The five facets of the Judging-Perceiving dichotomy are Systematic-Casual, Planful-Open-Ended, Early Starting-Pressure-Prompted, Scheduled-Spontaneous, and Methodical-Emergent.




Systematic-Casual


This core facet of the J-P dichotomy focuses on how we organize our physical environment, including the flow of events, activities, tasks, and projects.




Systematic


People at this pole have a variety of ways of achieving orderliness in their lives. They have a methodical and deliberate approach to doing both small, brief tasks and large, long-term ones; they have a need to schedule tasks and activities efficiently; and they want to be punctual in beginning and ending things on time. They use structures, methods, and deliberate systematic approaches to use their time efficiently, meet deadlines, and predict how long activities will take. Their approach permits them to have reserves of energy and time that would otherwise be wasted. This gives them the freedom to enjoy doing things for which they would not otherwise have time. They manage their leisure time and activities in the same systematic, well-ordered way, and for the same reason - it allows them to make the most of their leisure time and enjoy it more.


People at this pole maintain that if they were not systematic, too many things could go awry, wasting time, effort, and resources. Inefficiency and waste are unacceptable to them. They try to keep their homes and offices free of clutter and disarray. Clutter disrupts their ability to concentrate. Chaotic environments, be they at work or at home, interfere with their ability to get things done. Systematic people prefer to spend a few hours organizing things at the outset, and a few minutes a day to keep them that way, to avoid wasting time looking for misplaced files, memos, or tools. They consider it crucial to control their time, physical environment, and approach to work. They are quite uncomfortable if they do not have that control because that will lead to disorder that will have disastrous consequences. However, they can readily yield personal control to someone else who is also Systematic, once they know that the other person will maintain the necessary orderly structures.


The need for order and system extends beyond the physical environment for Systematic people. They also seek closure. Leaving decisions hanging is the same as having a messy desk or leaving tools scattered all over. When a task or decision is left unfinished, its incompleteness creates tension. Such tension depletes energy that could be better used for acting on the decision or tending to other matters.




Casual


People at this pole prefer a more spontaneous approach for accomplishing things. For them, system and order are burdens and impediments to working effectively, especially when being orderly inhibits their immediate response to what interests them. Casual people dislike the effort it takes to be systematic and may find such efforts to be quite difficult. They are most comfortable with an easygoing approach to schedules, deadlines, decision making, their physical environment, how they spend time, and how they perform tasks. This casualness entails openness to seeing and experiencing things in new and fresh ways. At times, others may mistake this for laziness. When there is too much order and predictability, Casual people miss the excitement, energy, and variety that spontaneity brings. They actively seek variety and newness and avoid constraining structures and systems. A loose, unstructured approach allows them to see, experience, or respond to opportunities they might otherwise miss. Casual people bring the greatest energy and enthusiasm to their work when, for example, an unexpected task is dropped in their lap. They do not being interrupted and asked to do something else in the middle of the day. Such interruptions create the kind of variety that keeps work from becoming patterned and boring. They like surprises that keep their days from being too predictable and repetitive.


Casual people are at their best when they are free to act on impulse, work on whatever tasks happen to strike their fancy, or respond to whatever requests or events come their way. Although they are certainly able to work systematically when necessary, variety and newness are intrinsically very satisfying to Casual people. They may therefore be at their best in work settings where procedures are not well established, and in non-routine types of jobs and activities. They are likely to thrive and perform well on projects types of jobs and activities. They are likely to thrive and perform well on projects requiring rapid development of goals and methods.


People at this pole are comfortable postponing decisions, and often prefer to do so. They may postpone making an important decision until they are satisfied that they have considered it from all angles. For minor decisions, they may simply prefer to let a period of time pass before they make their final decision. When it is time to decide, they make a decision based on all the information that has been brought to their attention. They are able to make a decision before they are ready if circumstances require this, but they may change it if new information becomes available later. On the other hand, when they have reached a decision after thoroughly weighing the issues involved, they may be quite reluctant to change it later. This is because they have invested so much effort in making the decision the first time.




Planful-Open-Ended


This facet emphasizes how we arrange our leisure time or social activities. Both daily and future plans are involved.




Planful


People at this pole like a definite schedule for their leisure time, one that specifies what day and what time they will do something. Such advance scheduling ensures that everything planned will actually happen. This requires knowing what you want to do ahead of time so a schedule can be devised. Planful people tend to structure any areas of their lives in orderly, planned ways. They like to pan in advance how they will spend each day, including vacation time and recreational activities. They prefer to know the dates and times of parties, dinners, and other social affairs in advance. They can then be certain that they will not miss something by scheduling another activity at the same time. This planfulness also means that they will likely not be available to accept invitations or attend social events on short notice, since their time will already be scheduled.


Their planfulness also extends to future events and goals. Such long-range planning ensures, for example, that they will meet their important financial and education objectives. Planful people are not comfortable leaving such important areas of life to chance occurrences in the future over which they will have no control. They are therefore likely to devote time and energy to gathering the information needed to accomplish such long-range planning.




Open-Ended


People at this pole prefer their leisure time to be unscheduled so they can take advantage of unexpected opportunities that may arise. Planning free time in advance virtually guarantees that something else will come up that is more interesting, important, or rare. In such situations, Open-Ended people may cancel preset plans rather than miss out on a more appealing activity. Their approach to leisure time involves the vibrancy and enthusiasm that results from interacting with an ongoing flow of events. Their liking for variety and improvisation in their use of such time is as meaningful as the specific activities in which they participate.


For Open-Ended people, variety and having the freedom to choose among the events that present themselves are what is most important. They do not necessarily feel they have missed something by choosing one thing over another on the spur of the moment. They may regret having to bypass a particular activity, but this is usually balanced by being able to choose something that matches the mood of the moment. This matching of oneself to the flow of life events and activities cannot occur if the activities and events are planned far in advance. It is only possible with an Open-Ended approach.




Early Starting-Pressure-Prompted


The fairly narrow focus of this facet is on how we manage time with regard to deadlines.




Early Starting


People at this pole much prefer to cope with deadlines by starting a task far enough in advance to allow plenty of time to finish. They tend to become quite stressed when they find themselves working until the last minute on projects that have deadlines. The stress caused by time pressure often spills over into relationships outside of the task they are trying to complete because their tension becomes general and persists until the task is done. This is often noticeable to the other people around them.


Early Starting people prefer to know their assignments well in advance. They can then begin their work early and not be pressured to get it done at the last minute. They do their best work when they can avoid last-minute rushes. Unexpected tasks or events that use up the time they had reserved for a scheduled project will be quite distressing for them. Severe time pressure can become so stressful for Early Starting people that they may find it hard to concentrate on what they are doing. They will then use their available time inefficiently.


Early Starting people feel like failures when they miss a deadline or were so rushed that they were not able to do their best work. Finishing just in time may be somewhat disconcerting, particularly if they have not had a chance to check their work thoroughly. Having time to spare after a task is completed is especially satisfying to them and they explicitly include such time for checking or reviewing in their plan.




Pressure-Prompted


People at this pole do their best work when they are under sufficient time pressure that meeting the deadline is a challenge. They find it hard to work well without the time pressure of a deadline. In fact, others observing them may have grave doubts that they will complete the job on time. Pressure-Prompted people find the adrenaline rush of trying to meet a tight schedule almost enjoyable. They may put off working on a project until the deadline is close enough that they will have to make a significant effort to finish it in time. This can be mistaken for procrastination, but it is actually not an avoidance of doing the task. While they appear to be doing nothing and letting valuable time slip by, they are actually working inside their heads. During this "inactive" time these people are doing something very similar to what a steam engine does when it stands idly by building up a head of steam. Pressure-Prompted people need a "gestation" period to stimulate the energy they need to tackle the project. If they are working on several projects, this gestation may even occur while they rush to finish other tasks whose deadlines are imminent.


The Pressure-Prompted approach to work involves more than just enjoying the energy aroused by time pressure. People at this pole feel that they actually do their best work under the stress of a severe time constraint. They have more ideas, work more efficiently, and think more clearly under those conditions. Depending on what kind of work they are doing, they may not know how long it will take them to finish. However, their awareness of the time available helps them determine what to include in the finished product and what to discard. Time pressure is thus an important part of their work style and they can use this to structure their finished product. If Pressure-Prompted people meet a deadline with time to spare, they are likely to feel that they began too soon and wasted time that could have been spent on something else. In fact, their enthusiasm may also fade near the end of a project if they finish too early. Such waning of enthusiasm may be a short-lived problem, however, as Pressure-Prompted people usually have several other imminent deadlines to which they can turn their attention.




Scheduled-Spontaneous


This facet centers on the degree of structure in one's daily activities.




Scheduled


People at this pole are comfortable with routine because it enables them to function efficiently. The appeal of routine is that time and energy are not wasted and things can be done "correctly." Routine promoted concentration and ensures continuity in work, so that it all flows together smoothly, efficiently, and as flawlessly as possible. Scheduled people enjoy fitting themselves into a routine that allows them to blend their own abilities and energy with those of other people. This ensures a predictable and productive flow of tasks and activities. They like structuring their daily activities in a known sequence because it prevents the energy waste that could occur if they had to suddenly shift gears. Scheduling their time allows them to look forward to all parts of their day, whether they are restful, satisfying, personally meaningful, or exciting. For scheduled people, routine itself is restful and comfortable in that one is not caught by surprise.


For the Scheduled person, routine also includes broad spans of time, in addition to morning rituals of rising, dressing, and getting ready for work. Weekly, seasonal, and yearly patterns of work, leisure, and family time are involved. The repetition used for some daily and longer-term routines is itself meaningful, providing a kind of anchor by which friendships and family relations are maintained.


Scheduled people are able to function without a fixed pattern of daily activities, for no one's days are all the same. However, they are apt to feel uncomfortable without a structure by which their days and weeks can be organized. If such a structure is missing, they may seek was of recapturing at least parts of their previous routines to restore order and avoid distressing confusion.




Spontaneous


People at this pole are energized by the prospect of variety in their daily work. The very thought of following the same routine day after day feels cramped and confining. They can work within a routine when it is necessary but find it painful to do so. They work best and with greatest energy when their work presents them with constant variety, and they will likely find as many ways as possible to introduce it into their work. Otherwise, they will become bored. They like the freedom to decide what tasks they will do and when. If they have this freedom, they may begin their workday by tackling whatever task strikes their fancy first, moving on to the others as they feel inclined, regardless of any deadlines attached to tasks.


Spontaneous people may also be bored by the thought of longer-term routines. Annual family vacations, holiday and birthday celebrations, and other recurring events may leave them cold. They may suggest some variations in ways of celebrating seasonal holidays just to keep them fresh. If there is too much routine in too many areas of their lives, people at this pole can break the monotony by exploring new activities. They may take courses at local colleges, join clubs, do volunteer work, or otherwise spend leisure time doing things they have never tried before. Variety and the freedom to respond on the spur of the moment are essential for their mental health. Being stuck in a rut from which there is no obvious escape is one of the worst things that can happen to them.




Methodical-Emergent


This facet is narrowly focused on how we sequence the smaller tasks that need to be done in order to finish larger projects. Time and scheduling are not considerations here.




Methodical


For people at this pole, getting ready to tackle a large project begins with organizing themselves and whatever materials, tools, or other people they will need. They may make lists of what they need to do and make notes about the specific steps required and the order in which they will do them. They make sure they have the necessary materials available or arrange to acquire them when they are needed. They may even arrange their materials in the order in which they will be used. They therefore will be unlikely to have trouble finding what they need when they need it. If help from others in doing something is necessary, Methodical people will contact those people well in advance. They may also call to remind these helpers shortly before they are needed.


Methodical people believe that approaching tasks in this way saves time; it also minimizes mistakes and reduces costs. These efficiencies produce faster and better work, as well as personal satisfaction. Methodical people enjoy organizing their work, tools, and materials. Doing so frees them to concentrate on doing a good job. If they have to work on a task with someone who is not Methodical, they may find the resulting inefficiencies frustrating. They may do as much advance organization as possible to minimize such frustration and accomplish the task efficiently.


Methodical people are likely to read through the complete set of directions that come with a project before starting to work on it. That way they know what tools and tasks are required and what sequence they should follow. By doing this, they may get a good enough grasp of the project that they can complete it correctly with only minor detours. Methodical people like to set sub-goals or milestones to help them assess whether they are on track.


Methodical teachers and trainers function best by making well-ordered lesson plans that build the students' knowledge sequentially. This ensures that important objectives are covered adequately. They also organize their lesson plans around explicit learning objectives. The lesson's parts must fit together well so that students will be best able to grasp new material.




Emergent


People at this pole tend to treat projects as explorations or discoveries and take delight in finding out what to do and how to do it as they go along. They do not usually start a large task by beginning with the first step. In fact, they may not complete any of the steps in a particular order, unless this is absolutely necessary. When they do make an outline or a list of required tasks in tackling a large project, it is apt to be very general. The list may include the tasks to be done, but it will not necessarily reflect the order in which they need to be or will be done. Taking tie to organize tools, materials, and people before beginning is not satisfying, interesting, or efficient for Emergent people. They prefer a looser, less structured approach to preparing for and carrying out tasks. They are eager to tackle parts of a task that interest them first, and they proceed to the other steps the same way. When a strict sequence of steps is required to complete the task correctly, they may discover this sequence by trial and error. As a last resort, they may read directions. Their exploratory approach means that they most likely will look for tools only when they get to a stage that requires them. At that point, they may have difficulty finding them; the tools may have been left with another project, or not yet returned to their usual place.


If they read directions at all, people at this pole almost never read them completely through before beginning a project. That would take the exploratory spirit out of the whole endeavor. They may glance at any diagrams shown, begin looking for parts that match those in the picture, and proceed from that point. If a part is missing or mislabeled, they will likely discover this only after they have already partially assembled the piece.


With the exploratory approach of Emergent people, the completion of one task leads to starting another. This trial of associations from one task to another can be best described as playing the whole thing by ear. At the end, the Emergent person will have an overall picture of how all the pieces fit together. This approach is particularly suited to new situations or projects where the specific tasks involved are not known, or where improvisation is needed. By tackling the core piece first, Emergent people spend most of their time and energy on what is most important. They then don't need to spend as much energy on the "frills".


Teachers and trainers at the Emergent pole prefer an adaptable approach to lesson plans. Their plans are likely to be general rather than detailed and to leave much room for improvisation. They may introduce new material that was not in their outline or digress and explore a particular topic in greater depth than they originally had planned. They are likely to explore new areas that were not in the plan at all if class interest warrants this. They will still cover the major learning objectives, but their sequence arises dynamically out of their unique interaction with a particular class on a particular day.

The reason about I am stating this is that in the popular theory INFP is always Fi-dom and INFJ is always Ni-dom, but, well, this popular theory goes against the statistics and goes against Jung as well. I can put the links to you that explain that in depth, but its a quite long read... So I have good reasons to treat Fi-dom and INFP as separate, as Fi-dom with auxiliary N can be either INFP or INFJ, and INFP can be either Ni-dom or Fi-dom. If this looks too awkward to you, you may need the links and do the long read.

But yeah, in the sense of J vs P that I did explained to you, that isn't wrong at all, a INFP can be a Ni-dom and a INFJ can be a Fi-dom as well.

For type one, what is important is the J that I explained here, the 21th century J vs P, not if Fi-dom or Ni-dom. But, also, some Ni-dom descriptions out there, different from Jung, does have J interference to make their paradigm "primary Ni=INJ" true, so, just a quick example, whereas Ni in Jung does have visions and all that stuff, their Ni is a visionary that works hard to achieve a single envisioned future, this latter does have 21th century MBTI J traits while the original source does not.

In general, there are a some clashes of Fi-dom and type 1, not enough to make a full restriction. But a good portion of type 1 are Judging and Conscientiousness traits, things like being a perfectionist and etc.. there is the "rational" trait but that in general is quite a secondary trait, not enough to clash with Fi-dom but enough to create a small T tendency. Strong J pulls S by default, due to the N-P & S-J MBTI correlation (I explained in part that recently, here). And there you got a xstJ tendency of type 1, and that is why INFP and ENFP, specially the latter, clashes a lot and too much with type one, however Fi-dom per se, even Fi-dom with auxiliary intuition, does have some clash but not enough, because if a specific Fi-dom person is a full of 21th century MBTI J traits and Conscientiousness from Big Five traits, then that is super ok for type 1 because they will have various things in common.

I hope you got what I mean XD. If you are a J in pure dichotomy term (forgetting the functions), then you could be a 1, if you are a INFP in pure dichotomy terms, then this combination has too much clashes and is too much ambivalent, which would "put you" on type 6 instead ("whatever you say about six, the opposite is often true").
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K
I'm back after a hiatus. Needed time to readjust to the natural world.

So I've been thinking of this recently and I haven't come to any conclusions yet. So I know the Enneagram deals with motivations for your actions yet the topical behaviours associated with them confuse me at times. In my case, I relate very strongly to some of the traits of Type 4 yet I feel like my primary motivation is very 1ish.

I know it's not common for INFPs to be typed as 1, but when I first took the Enneagram test on Truity, I answered as honestly as possible without any prior knowledge of the Enneagram and I got Type 1. I thought it was relatively accurate.

I just need help understanding this.

Why I think I maybe Type 4:
  1. I tend to ruminate on my purpose and identity in this world. Not so much who I am at my core (I honestly don't know/understand that) but more in how I can justify my existence here.
  2. I'm in touch with my feelings particularly in generating feelings of heroism/triumph. I listen to the Halo OST in order to feel this.
  3. I usually question my actions/work based off my initial judgement of them from an internal value system (maybe a 1 trait??). I usually have to feel like what I'm doing matters in the grand scheme of things.
  4. I can be emotionally incontinent and have broken down emotionally before. Been very reactive and vengeful in the past.
  5. I can be sensitive to people's demeanor at work (can't stand it when people are frowning and being sour all the time).
  6. I have a hard time relating to most people with how I think and do things (though I suspect that's my Aspergers?).
  7. I want to be seen as worthy in the eyes of people I respect (like my BJJ instructor, after being singled out for coming in late).
Some of it could be 4 but I'm not seeing the big 4 indicators--fixation on the ways one is deficient, making that your whole identity, etc. Some things point very slightly away from 4 actually--numbers 2 and 7 in particular aren't really 4 reactions, as 4s kind of rule out triumph and assume that people aren't going to like them.

Could you elaborate on #6?

Why I think I maybe Type 1:
  1. I'm highly perfectionistic with high standards for myself and those around me. I have a hard time tolerating degeneracy.
  2. I strive to fulfill some kind of sacred duty/purpose. I try and justify my existence here by dedicating myself to a trade/vocation that is of value and can be of use to people (questioning whether this is a 4 trait or a 1 trait??).
  3. I question my identity (4s are known for having a strong sense of who they are?) and rather justify it through action than simply being.
  4. I can't make autonomous decisions unless the rules clearly state otherwise.
  5. I strive to be a moral, competent and reliable man despite my flaws and shortcomings.
  6. I've always seen things in black and white. When I was a hardcore Christian in my earlier days, I tried forcing my mother and friends to convert in order to save them from Hell.
  7. Love order and structure in my day (I don't always get that but when I do, it feels comforting and motivating).
  8. I constantly question whether what I said/did was the right thing. Very self critical.
Anyway, that's all I can think of right now. What do you think I am? If there's anything you want to know in order to make a fairer assessment, ask and ye shall have it. For those whom initially knew me when I came here, I was under stress, so please don't base your judgements of me on first impressions.

I agree with charlatan about #2 (and also #3 actually) being more image-y than gut. Justifying identity through action is less 4 though, so that's something.

A lot of these points seem like they could be 6 actually. In particular 4 (6s like to rely on others or on an external set of standards for decisionmaking), but also 8 (6s doubt themselves) and kinda 6 too (6s need everyone to agree with them on some level). That said 8 and 6 could also be 1. 6s do have a line to 3 also, which is where your image focus seems to lie.

When you say "my flaws and shortcomings", what do you mean?
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K and Ginny
For what it's worth, a bunch of what Vendrah says is important stuff to keep in mind/what I hoped to underscore -- I think saying a Fi-dom is way less likely than Ni-dom to be a 1 smells fishy, whereas saying a J mentality is somewhat more likely to be 1 than a P mentality sounds less fishy. That said, I think even this deserves a bit of elaboration.

The part of E1 that is fairly neutral to J and P is the idealism about how things should be. The part that at all makes it lean J is probably the fact it's a gut type and may feel the need to repress doubt and such things common to type 6/other head types, and thus lean towards a very unambiguous, decided sense of what's right/wrong. That "decided" vs "open-ended" part is where the J vs P (dichotomies -- not functions) comes in.

Still, I sometimes think there may be a bit of a difference between 1w9 and 1w2 here; a 1 who is more likely to feel anger at things not being as they are, but perhaps more detached and cynical about whether they can be fixed, for instance. I think the added image type of 2 might push 1w2s into action more surely / have a more "what am I doing to make things right/otherwise I'm not worthy" vibe.

I also would note that P vs J doesn't really map too neatly onto perceiving vs judging dom in either direction, partly because "perceiving" is not necessarily oriented to open-endedness, particularly in types with an auxiliary function that is well-developed. At that point, other aspects of "perceiving vs judging" can take priority. In particular, one major thing about irrational vs rational is that there's a sense in which "irrational" functions have a vibe of "that's just how things are" -- for instance, when we note there are just certain laws of physics that happen to hold, and if there's not really a principle we can use to explain this, that's part of the irrational vs rational dichotomy. It relates to what in philosophy we talk of as empirically known vs rationally known. There's an association drawn between this and open-ended vs decided dichotomies in that in the very extreme, the former may be more willing to simply be open to seeing things as they simply are/let them be, rather than organizing them according to some principle (some meditation-oriented mystics emphasize this sort of thing a lot).
That is clearly where socionics might associate perceiving and P.
However, the fact is in terms of keeping things "decided" vs "open-ended," actually simply going by experience vs introducing further use of judging functions can actually leave things less decided at times.
What I think is clearest is that the "purest" types fit the most obvious association best-- e.g. perceiving-doms with little judging function use...are probably Ps.
 
Last edited:
What I think is clearest is that the "purest" types fit the most obvious association best-- e.g. perceiving-doms with little judging function use...are probably Ps.
Can you elaborate on this? I don't quite follow.
 
Ginny said:
Can you elaborate on this? I don't quite follow.

Sure!
So the background is I'm discussing ways perceiving-judging (in the sense of the functions: i.e. sensation/intuition = perceiving, feeling/thinking = judging) differs from and is similar to P vs J as found in traditional Myers Briggs tests (in dichotomies form).
By the purest of perceiving doms, I mean the ones where there's as little balancing out by an auxiliary function as possible.

The basic point is that perceiving vs judging in the sense of functions (thinking/feeling being judging, intuition/sensation being perceiving) has some relations to the P/J dichotomy in Myers-Briggs, but it's more in the sense of some overlap than complete overlap. E.g. the facet about keeping one's eyes open to whatever may come by vs liking things decided.

With the purest perceiving doms, they're going to have to be as perceiving>judging as can be, so they're more likely to also exemplify those aspects of P-J do overlap with perceiving-judging.
So I'd gather the perceiving-doms with the least balancing from an auxiliary thinking or feeling function are most likely of all to be P > Jish in the Myers-Briggs dichotomies.

I got to explaining this because there's some dispute in the typology communities what the relation between P vs J and perceiving vs judging is. Socionics theorists (when they discuss connections to MBTI) can be found saying at times that the best way is to go perceiving~P and judging~J.
MBTI focuses on the extraverted function-attitude. Obviously, both admit there is some relation between P-J and perceiving-judging.

I try to focus on at least explaining the part I think follows most conservatively without much allegiance to either of these.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ginny and John K
Sure!
So the background is I'm discussing ways perceiving-judging (in the sense of the functions: i.e. sensation/intuition = perceiving, feeling/thinking = judging) differs from and is similar to P vs J as found in traditional Myers Briggs tests (in dichotomies form).
By the purest of perceiving doms, I mean the ones where there's as little balancing out by an auxiliary function as possible.

The basic point is that perceiving vs judging in the sense of functions (thinking/feeling being judging, intuition/sensation being perceiving) has some relations to the P/J dichotomy in Myers-Briggs, but it's more in the sense of some overlap than complete overlap. E.g. the facet about keeping one's eyes open to whatever may come by vs liking things decided.

With the purest perceiving doms, they're going to have to be as perceiving>judging as can be, so they're more likely to also exemplify those aspects of P-J do overlap with perceiving-judging.
So I'd gather the perceiving-doms with the least balancing from an auxiliary thinking or feeling function are most likely of all to be P > Jish in the Myers-Briggs dichotomies.

I got to explaining this because there's some dispute in the typology communities what the relation between P vs J and perceiving vs judging is. Socionics theorists (when they discuss connections to MBTI) can be found saying at times that the best way is to go perceiving~P and judging~J.
MBTI focuses on the extraverted function-attitude. Obviously, both admit there is some relation between P-J and perceiving-judging.

I try to focus on at least explaining the part I think follows most conservatively without much allegiance to either of these.
You're less "judging" than I am here. While I understand the terminology in both socionics and the function model in MBTI, my personal stance towards the dichotomy models can be summed up as "useless bs", in that its minimalistic output makes any theoretically forward-thinking analysis impossible. I have been trying to find the way back to the roots in order to determine whether there is still any validity for dichotomy outside a statistical and thereby comparative field.


Personal opinion aside, I do think I understand what you mean now. You see a pure type in decisive preference of the type-denoting function. I wonder if it doesn't create a highly unbalanced personality, but that is besides the point.

I'm not sure if MBTI has much of a say in Enneagram. Likelihood doesn't keep something from attaining some truth value, right?
 
Ginny said:
You're less "judging" than I am here. While I understand the terminology in both socionics and the function model in MBTI, my personal stance towards the dichotomy models can be summed up as "useless bs",

My personal pet peeve is mostly when people take one of the functions-based systems and adhere to the rules too blindly -- after all, there are lots of competing theories for a reason. At the least, one has to justify why one takes the interpretation one does with a lot of seriousness or simply refrain from making too strong a claim.
This includes when newcomers are told (somewhat snobbily by the somewhat more initiated) of course the auxiliary is in the opposite attitude to the dominant, you're making a rookie mistake!
While that may be the theory one adheres to, it's a matter of raging discussion and ought to be presented as such.
 
  • Like
Reactions: John K and Ginny