Type Contradictions and Practicality
Why rigid contradictions may not always be living up to typology's aim
(This is one of my old articles on personality typology! It is highly specific and catered to those who already have knowledge on the topic. My page is not dedicated solely to these concepts anymore.)
With personality typology’s increased popularity, original written sources have been far more accessible and encouraged for learning more about various systems. What was once reading Chapter X of Psychological Types turned into reading the translations of the specific enneagram books and accessing the (strangely available) pdf of Syntax of Love. Therefore, the biggest debates that go on in the typology community are no longer only about the definitions of topics themselves, but also how to properly interpret them; it is now attempting to create an argument for a certain interpretation.
There are now, however, more complex and sophisticated correlations between the personality systems due to the ease of accessing the resources. While interpretations are valued, there are definitely now more rigid opinions on typology and particularly accepted combinations. It almost seems like competition at times, but there is some genuine helpfulness that some people do express when providing information on these sources and the common conclusions the community has extracted.
So—while there is less misinformation spreading around regarding ideas like the cognitive functions, the newer rigid mindset is more questionable given the partially ambiguous nature of the sourced texts. Is there a need for a rigid system for typing, or are people reading too much into certain lines and not applying it practically?
If there was anything to learn about personality typology for, it would be the way that people can apply the concepts in real life. They can be helpful for understanding others and yourself, and I—as I have expressed before in the previous article—believe enneagram has a very important and motivating approach to comprehending the self and identity.
Meanwhile, there are hurdles that come with it—also as previously mentioned in articles. While trying to fit people in a box, it is even further emphasized by the presence of rigid contradictions.
But other than the texts becoming more popular, why are contradictions more emphasized than before? I believe that there was soon a need for people to return to the original sources, such as abandoning more RHETI type theories of enneagram for Naranjo’s writings, and subsequently making the books easy to access in the community for those who had the same desire to learn from the original. (Naranjo is not exactly the “original,” but little of Ichazo’s core theory is accessible in print.) This was exactly the same when attitudinal psyche became popular with people preferring the system of psychosophy as the original theory.
Searching for the original theory is incredibly helpful as it helps with further understanding the theories. But there is an active contradiction in this process, as RHETI and attitudinal psyche were their own interpretations of the theory from the original sources. As much as people say that they are wholeheartedly sticking to what the source is, often they are still mixing different interpretations in order to create something more practical. And that is generally what people are looking for—practicality.
The reason why Model A socionics became so much more popular over the Jungian system was its more practical approach, especially when it comes to how Augusta’s writing is more understandable than Jung’s. Adding to that, as people began to actually read Psychological Types it became very clear that the interpretations of his writing were too varied in order for there to be a cohesive system. The biggest problem that the Jungian system faces is the lack of clarity in the definitions of the auxiliary functions, thus Jung’s ambiguity makes the search for a practical system more challenging.
Now, the most popular method of typing is with three systems: socionics (particularly Model A with various additional authors… basically those who aren’t Gulenko and friends), enneagram, and psychosophy. The Jungian system is typically another one used when typing, but it is no longer preferred by the general community. When looking at the source material for all of these systems, it becomes apparent that certain types seem to go together very well. For example, the ILI’s character is generally disconnected from reality and physical sensation, and the type is also heavily oriented towards intellectualization. Due to this, ILI pairs with E5’s cognitive introversion, isolation, and greed for knowledge.
To protect her delicate feelings, she takes a distance that hides that nervous and vulnerable sensitivity. You can close the shutters on your life to dwell in a dreamlike existence, poor in deeds but effervescent in thoughts. Of the triad of mental characters, E5 is the most intellectual, the most paternal, if we refer to the three inferior parts, father, mother, and son. As Claudio Naranjo says, only the thinker exists in him, with a serious lack of empathy. Avaricia (Claudio Naranjo)
The intuitive introvert is prone to pessimistic philosophizing. They are often called misanthropes. At times one gets the impression that they only see darkness and that they themselves are evil and bad creatures. That is not the case. They just spend their whole lives as if they were afraid that they might miss something. If they had not warned themselves in advance about some looming danger (they are less interested in good luck), they would probably feel superfluous. [ILI Description taken from Augusta Project]
Both excerpts are taken from sections that detail general descriptions of the type, and it is clear that they have similarity. Both types have innate sensitivity, but they are prone to hiding their feelings and isolating, and both descriptions also refer to their intellectual inclinations.
Therefore, it is easy to see how an increased access to the source material was able to begin to have people draw connections between the systems and further understand them. Especially since most typology authors were all influenced by Jungian ideas, these correlations are meaningful to personality typology. However, the problem that they raise concerns the idea of practicality in typology as people began to hone in on finding correlations.
As more people became aware of type correlations, they also became equally as aware of resulting contradictions that came from comparing type descriptions across systems. Once again looking at E5, it was easy to see how this type would never be a 3L/4L (weak logic) due to E5’s emphasis on knowledge acquisition. Descriptions of E5 are also heavily correlated to cognitive introversion and isolation, thus they could only correlate to introverted socionics and Jungian types. Hence, it would be strange to see an E5 identify also as a cognitively extroverted type such as EN(T) and ILE.
Many types that people assigned themselves and characters as ended up not making much sense anymore when taking into account Naranjo’s original writing; one of the most common mistypes that became strange later was ILI (IN(T) or MBTI INTJ) and E8. E8 was known for being correlated to Te (at least in the more “MBTI” definition of the function, not the socionics IME definition), so many people thought it would make sense for more “brash” and “angry INTJs.” In reality E8 is so cognitively extroverted and focused on physical sensation that it would not make sense for an introverted intuitive to have an 8 core:
The E8 is an excessive character, the most impulsive of the action characters. Energy consumption, the search for intense stimuli, the attraction to violence and risk, and the effusive manifestation of enthusiasm are typical expressions of Lust.
Lust manifests itself through an uncontrollable tendency towards the satisfaction of impulses and needs; an incessant search for pleasure understood not as surrender to the senses or as well-being, but rather as an intense experience that returns to the individual the feeling of being alive and that can go beyond the barrier of hardness and insensitivity.
In short, we could say that his passion is to obtain here and now satisfaction and gratification, like a teenager. The future does not exist, and the past is not necessary. 27 Being (Claudio Naranjo)
The isolationist ILI who bases their personal worth on their vision of the future contradicts directly with the E8 core trait of ignoring the future in favor of present, physical sensations.
There are a lot more contradictions that came to light and subsequent general acceptance, however, that were more based on nitpicking parts of each book. Many IEIs type as SO4—E4 and the social instinct—due to SO4 type’s warm dreamlike attitude and cognitive introversion. This is the only E4 type that IEI can be, but there are many who claim to type as IEI and relate to SP4 as well. Many times, they could be a mistyped EII, and the contradiction lies in the fact that the stoic SP4 would not match with the Fe of an IEI that makes the type more warm and expressive.
The problem, again, consists of how people are not that easy to box in. Having to fit all of these requirements seems unrealistic for every person in the world, and it would make sense that people would never be exactly in line with every single word that the authors wrote. While these authors created systems to help people further understand themselves, they still even differed on their own typing of people. While some takes are outdated given information we know now, it still proves that it is not possible to simply place people in a mold to always fit. Additionally, it is sometimes even harmful for people to put themselves in this place where they think that they have to adhere to a certain standard based on their type all the time. If personality typology ends up more harmful for someone than good, then the practicality of the system is null. It would not be setting out to do what it was meant to.
So while there are obvious types that do not go together, there can still be exceptions to rules that make sense with how humans are. Like always, I do not believe that people should be identifying with their type to the extreme and relying on it as a crutch or an explanation for poor behavior. But finding meaning out of the core of an enneagram type and the functions of a socionics type is important on an individual basis, and other people invested in typology should not be trying to stray individuals away from wanting to understand themselves further. Simply put, it is not like anyone is going to die for saying that they relate to both IEI and SP4.
People are not rigid characters, and they do not function like robots. They will not always fall into the archetype, and there may be some aspects of types that they relate to even if they contradict in a few paragraphs. The essence of the types is important, and that is how people are going to be able to comprehend their identity if they so wish to use personality typology as a tool. Those helping people to understand their type should be proceeding by giving comprehensible and thorough information, but they should also affirm the one beginning to want to discover themselves as giving validation is a virtue—a key part of an individual journey.
