Re: Type vulnerabilities

Posted by pork on January 24, 2002 at 19:15:54:

In Reply to: Type vulnerabilities posted by P on January 23, 2002 at 09:00:01:

Let's see what we have....

a-b-c = a vulnerable to b vulberable to c, etc.

1-3-2-7-9-5-1 (competency and optimism groups)
8-6-4-8 (reactive group)

Interesting. I can vouch for 6-4, and maybe 4-8. The others make sense, but I can't be quite as certain about them.

I might say that 2s "draw out" (in other words, influence) my 3 wing, and 1's my 5 wing. (It might be even more accurate to say that 1's draw out my 1-connection - I am more comfortable going to 1 than 2, especially around 1's - but that issue may have another basis).

I am usually more comfortable being influenced by 8 than by 2 or 1.

2's make me feel strained in my expression (maybe a 4c2 stress response and an unconscious but nonetheless futile attempt to mirror them). Yet, leaning toward 3 is even more discomforting in these situations. 2's are no-nonsense types who don't usually appreciate a veneer.

1's occasionally make me feel narrow, but I'm usually comfortable with them (albeit strained - once again, maybe a line-connection dynamic; a 4 with a line-connection to 1 is off-color, by the 1's standards, compared to an actual type-1 person, and can make communication idiosyncratic). My 5-wing might be particularly stilted by them. Yet, going to 1 feels relatively comfortable - and comes easier to me than it does to 5's probably.

I have seen 5's who were unable to connect with 1's, probably because they did not have the 4c1 instinctual focus method handy. It's quite hilarious.

There's not much dynamic between me and 3's (they neither elate nor discomfort me), and I feel that 7's are more vulnerable to me than vice-versa (that might be their 6-wing, of course, especially since they seem less vulnerable to me when they have a pronounced 8-wing). 9's... nothing.

^(oo)^

Follow Ups:

• Also.... pork 19:40:18 01/24/02 (1)
  • Re: Also.... P 11:37:14 01/25/02 (0)

Post a Followup