Posted by Interlocking (63.249.97.95) on January 15, 2003 at 12:11:54:
In Reply to: Re: The usual: 5w4 or 4w5 posted by Denial (203.113.51.4) on January 13, 2003 at 19:32:52:
> There are a few of ways you might be able to figure this out. Try them > and see if they help.
> In no particular order:
> - relationship to parents: 4s disconnected from both, 5s ambivalent
> towards both. difficult to figure this out if, like me, you have a
> strong 4 wing. But it can help move you towards your enneagram home.
I've never been particularly attached to them, but I've never hated them either.
> - talk style: 4s tell epic tales and their stories and are filled with
> what a 5 wold find irrelevant detail (is it *really necessary* to say
> that you hung up' the phone after you said bye?). 5s offer
> dissertations (usually after taking a deep breath and starting with
> "there are a few reasons why this is/is not...")
I'm often accused of telling professorial-type lectures. I've wished for better storytelling ability, but I don't have it.
> - problem solving: 4s tend to find problems amusing and quirky, 5s find > them generally annoying and therefore must either solve them away (6
> wing) or reframe them so that they aren't problems anymore (4 wing)
Don't understand the question. How can a problem be "amusing and quirky"? Is this a math problem or some other kind of problem?
> - this one is usaly the clincher: idiosyncracy. The word itself. A 4
> being called idiosyncratic would be flattered in some respect; it is a
> difference, it sets them apart, even if it makes them peculiar. A 5
> would want to make sure 2 fundamental things before being flattered: 1) > does this make me look foolish and/or stupid, and 2) *does this
> interfere with my ability to understand something*.
I would want to know if it is an insult first. Are they saying, "This person is idiosyncratic and therefore we can safely ignore what he is saying?"
> - 5s tend to look at issues and see numerous factors. that is why they > can take problems apart without destroying the whole
> (comparmentalizing). 4s don't have the natural desire to want to do
> this, even though they may have the ability. the find deconstructing,
> generally, cold and robotic.
I tend to see numerous factors at once. I don't find such a thing cold and robotic, although I would argue that seeing numerous factors does not mean deconstructing something. How is rotating and testing a multifaceted set of factors in one's mind deconstructing it?
> Based entirely on what you've written, I think you're a 5 because you
> have integrated an understanding of the world with an understanding of
> yourself; you see them as the same overall thing. I think a 4 would be > much more inclined to link the two; to see them as related, but not one > and the same pursuit. Asking a 5 to separate an understanding of
> themself from an understanding of the world-at-large would be like
> asking one to turn gray back into black and white; 5s can't conceive of > doing this, but I think a 4 could, and a flair and elegance that would
> leave the 5 wondering how someone could take such an intuitive leap and > not care, or in fact relish, being called illogical.
I cannot imagine relishing being called illogical. While I do tend to be amused by people who come up with ways to call me unusual, I would not want to be seen as thinking about things erroneously. Except sometimes when a person who is clearly thinking illogically says I am illogical, then I view it as positive because if they found me logical I would be worried.