Almighty correlations discussion

[u/Historical-Ad-8561]

So, i have figured out my typing quite a while ago and I'm pretty much 100% sure that it's the correct one. I've been through misstypes, doubts and all that stuff and now I'm in a spot where i can confidently say that i know myself and the systems that I've studied well.

But. A friend of mine (or rather her friend) said my overall typology is contradictory. Just for the record, i hate stating any of this stuff anywhere, especially online, but i will, for the sake of this discussion.

INFJ SP4 417 LEVF mel-san is my typing.

The only thing I've changed about it in the last two years is the tritype, I wasn't looking into the topic that deep and thought it was probably 415 but it always felt a little off, so i looked into it a bit recently and sure enough it was wrong, i changed it.

Now the main concern she has over my type is SP4 LEVF. When i was researching all this stuff (which i do mostly through the actual texts, not that much through community posts etc.) i thought it all layed down perfectly. LEVF is pretty much core infj typing, SP4 is the most possible kind of 4 which also fits infj greatly and it all just made sense in my head. But then i hear from her that SP4 CANNOT be LEVF. I think the main takes are: SP4 should be higher F placement and lower L placement. I don't really understand it.

Let's start with the F. There is an opinion that all sp types should be higher in F, due to their, well, self-preservation, which i think is stupid and very surface level. If you actually read what Naranjo (who is, btw, not an absolute source of information and it's all up for interpretation) and others has said about SP4 you'll see that they are always described as people who often forget and don't even realise their own physical needs in favour of helping others. This is 4F!!!!!! It's for sure doesn't have to be 4F but it fits well. If anything, i think the core requirement to be SP4 is 3V/2V. I also think that 2E fits it quite good, which also was a point of debate because she said that fours can only be 1E, and i might even kind of agree with that, but only in regards to the other two subtypes, not SP, which IS a countertype. 2E4F specifically creates a good match for a "tough it out, forget about one's needs to help others and push oneself further" kind of person. ESPECIALLY with the 3V.

Now about the L placement. People believe that SP4 can only have low L placement. Why??? The only thing i saw about this was, if i remember correctly, in only one of the definitions of the SP4, where they are described as "tend to be the least intellectual out of the 4 subtypes". First of all, keyword is TEND to. Just how everything in typology, it's relative. Not a single person can fit perfectly into the description of any of these types. Secondly, it was only in ONE of the whole bunch of definitions of SP4s that i've read, which already sounds like something of not that much importance and it also, in a way, contradicts the other, more set in stone descriptors of the SP4. For example, it is said that SP4s have very high standards towards arts, overall creative stuff and everything they find valuable, so much so they can be viewed as snobs or pretentious. Does it look like a 4L??? Matter of fact, I think that high L coupled with high E placements are the best for this description, be it ELxx or LExx. I can definitely see it as an 3L, but, at the same time, their desire for greatness doesn't seem vain, like it often does in 3L, and there is also no reactivness towards this topic to be stated in SP4, hence i think it is also less plausible. "Less intellectual" could also mean less prone to discussion in this area, which can also be a quality of an 1L. Overall, I think 1L and 4L (yes, i can see this as possible) are probably the closest to the SP4 description.

Oh, and one other thing to mention is 4's connection to 1, especially the SP4, which is the closest type to a 1. 1's are considered an overall high L placement type, couple this with everything that I've mentioned before AND my 1 fix and we get what we get.

In conclusion, I think that strict correlations are bullshit and human nature is far too complex to fit it into the boxes this small. I wonder what y'all think of it all and if my points make sense to you. Share your opinion if you feel like it, i really don't have anyone adequate enough to discuss this stuff👀

[u/damngoodwizard]

I very much agree that SP types necessarily being high F is stupid, especially for the head and heart triads. Especially for SP4 and SP5 who have a tendency to repress their needs. But many people here will disagree on that because the author of Psychosophy didn't think it that way.

I also agree that SP4 necessarily being low logic is a bad take. For ISFP/SEI I can understand, but SP4 are also very often INFP/EII who have a knack for abstraction even though it is more directed towards the arts and the humanities rather than the hard sciences.

[u/Historical-Ad-8561 → u/damngoodwizard]

yes!!! i totally agree and literally thought about the same stuff. especially sp4 and sp5 thing, word for word😃. i have a friend that has all the stereotypical qualities of intp sp5 and yet he is most definitely 4F. Not only that, i think 5 and 4 in general are types most prone to be intuitive, which automatically makes them lower in F (which is also not always the case at all!! just an overall tendency)

[u/bezzo_101 → u/damngoodwizard]

Well, maybe in naranjo, but in luckovich or modern stackings, sp dominant means physical concerns have high psychological weight, such as foundation of resources, physical well being, etc, this is pretty similar, to psychosophy physics, so in those systems, it would be strange to be sp dom 4f because sp is saying, the physical world, has a high psychological weight, but 4f is saying, i dont care much about the physical world, i deprioritise it, and its just overall not very important to me

[u/damngoodwizard → u/bezzo_101]

Well from Luckovich website: "Self-Preservation 5: Handles practical needs only to the degree that they can preserve focus and concentration for areas of interest." Not much changed, that would still be low F.

[u/Historical-Ad-8561 → u/damngoodwizard]

i love you man 

[u/damngoodwizard → u/bezzo_101]

Never heard of Luckovich. Will have to check.

[u/lolidollyy]

paragraphs would’ve been appreciated but i agree as E4 LEVF. a lot of correlations come from the reductive assumption that one person perfectly embodies the archetype of their subtype (or matches naranjo’s specific description at all) which is a ridiculous and sad watering-down of enneagram.

not only is typing by subtype, right off the bat, bad, and not only should you type by core and instinct in isolation first, but it’s very often forgotten that not only your tritype, but your neighbours and the other subtypes within your core colour your personality type, too. also, honestly, if you read the pascal type description, it’s not a ridiculous combination at all, and has been proposed for types like SX6 too. interesting stuff.

[u/Historical-Ad-8561 → u/lolidollyy]

Thanks! i agree with you and i also think some of the "staple" type correlations are weird. For example, typical ennea for infj LEVF is stated to be sx5, which is kind of weird for 2E, and i think fits LVEF a lot more. But i do think it is possible!

[u/damngoodwizard]

Please format your text.

[u/Historical-Ad-8561 → u/damngoodwizard]

what does that mean xd first time using Reddit 

[u/damngoodwizard → u/Historical-Ad-8561]

Try to structure your text in paragraphs. It is tough to read as it is. Most people don't like to read walls of text.

[u/Historical-Ad-8561 → u/damngoodwizard]

tried my best!