Tritype description shitpost

125 - The Rule-Maker

126 - The Strict

127 - The MFD (Mandatory Fun Day)

135 - The Robot

136 - The Stricter

137 - The Leader

145 - The Nerd

146 - The Other Nerd

147 - The Perfectionist

258 - The Opinionated

259 - The Passive

268 - The Fake Nice

269 - The Follower

278 - The Polar

279 - The Happy

358 - The Enforcer

359 - The Ivory Tower

368 - The Aggressive

369 - The Social

378 - The Loud

379 - The Optimist

458 - The Dark

459 - The Quiet

468 - The Fighter

469 - The Crisis

478 - The Badass

479 - The Soft

THE GREATEST SAGA OF OUR TIME

I have no clue why this is so god damn funny but i cannot stop fucking watching it

Today I will be rating queen naked

1)

10/10 good, wholesome, the og

Blank expressions, cosy Fred and model Bri, would look at again.

2)

9/10 they’re all trying not to laugh and it’s cute but also Brian may be having a stroke save him.

Extra points for Roger’s little smirk and Deaky’s only mild change from the previous deadpan stare.

3)

-149/10 they look so scared what is happening save them

(John = :|)

4)

30000/10 (I wish there were capital numbers)

ROGER ARE YPI WEARING LACY FUCKING UNDERWEAR??? EXPLAIN TO ME MY GOOD CHRISTIAN BOY? PUT THAT CHEEKY GOD DAMN SMILE AWAY YOURE WORRYING THE CHILDREN

(Deaky stares, for he knows)

5)

8/10 a little too sensual for me

There’s a lot going on here I need a minute to not feel like I’m being called to an ethereal orgy.

But then again isn’t that what queen is all about?

6)

10/10 very good I’m in love

Why is it fluffy at the bottom? We may never know, but my dad has eyeliner on and his nipples out and I’m okay with that.

Conclusion: John Deacon has one facial expression and he will change for no man, clothed or otherwise.

This is both amazing and profoundly irritating - the exact writing equivalent of that thing artists do - you know, how they’ll mess up anything that’s on expensive paper and planned in every single detail but get them doodling during a boring lesson and suddenly they’re Michel-bloody-angelo.

“Moon drunk monster” is the best phrase to refer to a werewolf ever :D

The danger in typing yourself based on type combination descriptions such as “sx 5″ instead of figuring out the individual parts (e.g. ”5 core” and “sx/sp”) is that you will rely too much on archetypical descriptions and ignore the fears and motivators underneath the whole concept.

Even though instincts influence enneatype and vice versa you have to understand them seperately first.

Otherwise you will just pick some fancy descriptions from a big pile of astrology-like commonplace generalities, assuming that you relate to them when the author based them on 2 or 3 people at best, probably all with the same MBTI type, ignoring how different functions flavor types. And the reason you relate to them is not because you actually are sx7 but because the author described only Fe-users in this combination and you also use Fe while you are actually soc7 but you can’t relate to that specific description because the author used just Te-examples on this one.

As long as there is an interaction effection between instincts and motivation, this should also be accounted for, which makes the additative approach to typing somewhat skeletal. Adding instincts on top of motivation (or the other way around) assumes that these parts of the mind don’t affect one other. Moreover, one might just as well rely on archetypal descriptions the other way around as well. There are plenty of archetypal descriptions of core enneagram types and iv as well, so this is a challenge no matter the typing system in place. I would say the best approach is to do both: learning about the individual parts and their interaction effect makes for a more powerful understanding of personality dynamics.

Yes you should check both but I think the most important thing is to understand them separately first like op said - of course there’s an interaction but descriptions alone may be too biased/generical etc

I definetly agree that overall descriptions will be too generic to make valuable typing, yes. Telling someone «read this and tell me which type is more like you» is the least accurate way to type anyone no matter the system. As far as I understood it, this was supposed to be a roast of the Naranjo/Chestnut-approach to typing theory, but really this descriptive typing op points out is really a problem no matter which typing approach you take. What the Naranjo-approach states (which for some reason a bunch of people on tumblr dislike with a passion) is that the interaction effect between iv and enneagram motivation is too detrimental to be overlooked. For instance, the social instinct may manifest so differently in a type 6 and a type 7, because it is so deeply affected by the underlying enneagram motivation, that there is little common social instinct traits between the two left to discuss. Thus, you get these types op refered to, like sx 6 (meaning sx iv*6= sexual 6). Ofc some similarities will remain, like both sp6 and sx6 being motivated by fear, but the different iv drives to survival and protection will still create pretty destinct personality profiles. Yet only relying on their descriptive values and not focusing on the interplay between instinct and motivation is pretty dumb, I agree, but I dont think it discredit the approach.

The danger in typing yourself based on type combination descriptions such as “sx 5″ instead of figuring out the individual parts (e.g. ”5 core” and “sx/sp”) is that you will rely too much on archetypical descriptions and ignore the fears and motivators underneath the whole concept.

Even though instincts influence enneatype and vice versa you have to understand them seperately first.

Otherwise you will just pick some fancy descriptions from a big pile of astrology-like commonplace generalities, assuming that you relate to them when the author based them on 2 or 3 people at best, probably all with the same MBTI type, ignoring how different functions flavor types. And the reason you relate to them is not because you actually are sx7 but because the author described only Fe-users in this combination and you also use Fe while you are actually soc7 but you can’t relate to that specific description because the author used just Te-examples on this one.

As long as there is an interaction effection between instincts and motivation, this should also be accounted for, which makes the additative approach to typing somewhat skeletal. Adding instincts on top of motivation (or the other way around) assumes that these parts of the mind don’t affect one other. Moreover, one might just as well rely on archetypal descriptions the other way around as well. There are plenty of archetypal descriptions of core enneagram types and iv as well, so this is a challenge no matter the typing system in place. I would say the best approach is to do both: learning about the individual parts and their interaction effect makes for a more powerful understanding of personality dynamics.

what is the truth barbara

peekaboo

😭 so pure

The funny dogs histories

New Stick