Humanities oriented INTPs = 5w4?

[casuallyobservant]

Hi, I was wondering, could INTPs who are interested in the humanities, or 'soft sciences' (such as history, psychology, politics, philosophy, sociology, etc.) likely be 5w4s according to the Enneagram? I'm not an expert in either Enneagram or MBTI, but I was thinking after I took the Enneagram and got 5w4 and reading about it, it clicked to me how much the 5w4 description meets INTP.

I've always been more interested in the humanities (especially psychology), than 'hard sciences', and I've been a writer. I always get INTP on MBTI, which at first I thought was a bit odd, since INTP is often associated with the "Engineer". I feel I'm drawn to patterns and connections within and between systems, which is a big part of why I'm interested in psychology, but I'm still analytical at the core, which I think is what differentiates NT from NF. For a while I thought I was NF, but my cognitive functions are very Ti-dominant, and I've observed how Fe has been my weak spot.

From what I've read about Enneagram (I know it doesn't fully align with MBTI, however), Type 5 correlates the most with INTX, and INTPs tend to be common in both the 5w4 and 5w6 wings. Anecdotally, on some INTP forums I heard INTPs of the 5w4 flavor are the most common, considering how their discussions are largely dedicated to typology, and psychology in general. Could 5w6 INTPs be more of the classic "Nerd" or scientist stereotype, while the 5w4s are more individualistic and drawn towards the humanities (studying social behavior, but as an observer, or critic)?

 

[OrLevitate]

there's no such thing as a hard science

 

[Grayman]

Engineer? My curiosity doesn't limit me to soft or hard science. If it has parts and I can put them together to see what different things can become of it I will do so.

 

[TheManBeyond]

i wish you at least separate paragraphs

 

[Grayman]

i wish you at least separate paragraphs

What?

 

[nearfantastica]

I'm an INTP and have tested as a 5w4 as well. I'm not very familiar with enneagram, but the description, as I recall, fit well.

Personally, I'm more on the humanities side. I mean, I'm more talented with english than math. So it was inevitable. But as an INTP I don't think your interests could be limited to either the humanities or physical sciences. Regardless of my mathematical incompetence I have always enjoyed and done fairly well with physics. And I've seriously entertained geology as a career choice, although people always told me to be a psychologist or lawyer.

 

[Kuu]

I've always tested as 5w4 as well as INTP, and I really dig all the "soft" sciences you listed, far more than my interest and capabilities in "hard" ones like CS or math (though I have a soft spot for physics). My field of work also has a considerable dose of both humanities and technicalities, which suits me just fine for now.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I test 5w6 and I'm interested in both descriptive and empirical sciences.
True enough art and humanities mostly engage me to connect them to some sort of orderly framework, usually on macro level models, such as world systems theory or linguistic analysis with mathematics and evolutionary migration patterns. I would mostly seek to use all the valuable knowledge if it is availible.

Simply put: if something isn't logical or rational, doesn't invoke a preferable emotion, isn't a topic of conversation, then it might as well not exist.

 

[ddspada]

I'm 5w4 as far as I know and can tell.
I enjoy calculus, algebra and physics, but I find that ruminating about psychology, sociology and philosophy is much more enjoyable. I study philosophy (with a focus on logic), but seriously considered physics and architecture as well.
In school, math was always one of the subjects I did the best in, and history was usually the one I did the worst in by far.

 

[Brontosaurie]

there's no such thing as a hard science

you don't reckon there's a difference between STEM and humanities?

for me, humanities is way easier. write papers juggling some concepts that your teacher likes, add neat references, and you're set. to me that's creative writing rather than science. whatever fits the lingo will pass.

i plan entering pharmacology though because humanities is a long term detriment of character and gives no jobs if you're not "networking" i.e. selling your soul. it is actually incommensurable with sincere, grinding, alienated work. one must not identify with ones wage labour at this point in economical history, lest one should succumb to petrifying self-deception.

this is of course a binary simplification. fields like political science, economics and psychology reside in a grey area.

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, if we look at the wings, Fours are more prone towards the internal and subjective, personal identity, how the external world intersects with one's perceptions and experiences. Sixes are more prone towards groups and the external... so it kind of "changes the direction" of the Five focus on knowledge and comprehension. I don't think "soft science" is a bad term, but what it really means is that "hard sciences" are more quantifiable externally, they can be validated through some kind of external data and more easily focus on the details of that data; the soft science is more about bodies of knowledge consisting of conceptualized data that can provide a huge variance and hinge in some way on personal experience.

The 5w4 is a very apt description of me, and what it means for me is that I channel all of that focus and desire to understand on the experience of being human... I'm less interested in it as an end in itself as a Four would be (the Four LIVES within it and thinks in terms of it as the default), more interested in experiencing it so I can tear it apart, dissect it, figure it out, define and understand it. How people work, how people think, what drives us, what scares us... and there's an immersiveness in it, like making yourself your own lab rat in your own series of experiments so as to understand something better. That's the "detached" element that comes along with Five.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

i plan entering pharmacology though because humanities is a long term detriment of character and gives no jobs if you're not "networking" i.e. selling your soul. it is actually incommensurable with sincere, grinding, alienated work. one must not identify with ones wage labour at this point in economical history, lest one should succumb to petrifying self-deception.

You need to be good to succeed in humanities. It's not that the doors suddenly close after you finish your course, it's just that you need to prove your worth and in comparatively rare instances it's possible.

In engineering there is more demand and they accept less skilled and less adept people.

 

[Brontosaurie]

You need to be good to succeed in humanities. It's not that the doors suddenly close after you finish your course, it's just that you need to prove your worth and in comparatively rare instances it's possible.

In engineering there is more demand and they accept less skilled and less adept people.

STEM work is actual work, humanities work is having an opinion and being posh about it.

i'm way more gifted in humanities so no bias in that way, fwiw

Jennywocky: good post!

 

[EyeSeeCold]

for me, humanities is way easier. write papers juggling some concepts that your teacher likes, add neat references, and you're set. to me that's creative writing rather than science. whatever fits the lingo will pass.

Are you saying this for enneagram purposes? What do you think your enneagram type is?

For me, humanities is way harder. Write papers juggling some concepts that you have no personal inspiration for, add digressive references, and you're stifled. To me that's conventional writing rather than authenticity. Whatever you personally care about that doesn't fit the standard won't pass.

As a likely 5w6 / 9w1*, I think that's why I have always had a particular distaste for English classes. And while I was never really enthusiastic about any field of science/math either, I have preferred fields where I can learn something, where my curiosity is piqued and I develop a voracious appetite for knowledge. To that extent I believe I have respect for history as part of humanities.

 

[Brontosaurie]

Are you saying this for enneagram purposes? What do you think your enneagram type is?

For me, humanities is way harder. Write papers juggling some concepts that you have no personal inspiration for, add digressive references, and you're stifled. To me that's conventional writing rather than authenticity. Whatever you personally care about that doesn't fit the standard won't pass.

As a 5w6, I think that's why I have always had a particular distaste for English classes. And while I was never really enthusiastic about any field of science/math either, I have preferred fields where I can learn something, where my curiosity is piqued and I develop a voracious appetite for knowledge. To that extent I believe I have respect for history as part of humanities.

not explicitly enneagram - just about the legitimacy of scientific fields, spurred by OrLevitate's comment. i am sorry if this is off topic. my enneagram according to tests has varied between 1, 4, 5, and 9. mostly i get 5w4.

well, it's partly an individual preference thing i guess. still from my perspective i loath humanities as a discipline, even though i am talented in making up that sort of crap when a situation calls for it and when there is a singular purpose to it, and furthermore can attach a personal interest to most of the concepts. this discrepancy gets me thinking that difference in inquisitive approach between the two poles of academia is not just a correlate of personal preference, corresponding discourses having equal scientific dignity. honestly i don't think studies in the humanities produce any tangible scientific knowledge and i claim that its status as academic discipline is symptom of a cultural sickness. humanities concern the stuff that must be left to private discussion or introspection and expressed in careful ethical consideration rather than ascribed objectivity, applied in public campaigns and argued by ivory tower sharpshooters who pretend to be radicals fighting oppression. wow what a mess......

i can see where you're coming from, unifying theme being the sentiment that some activities are perverted and corrupted unless kept free and personal. wish i also shared your drive to work toward a real understanding within a civil framework.

i suppose i didn't manage to make any sense here

 

[Analyzer]

I am a 5w4 and in general I prefer thinking about the "humanities" over the natural sciences.

The thing with the natural sciences is that it assumes an ultimate given or causality for understanding truth. You can experiment with a chemical in a lab, identify it's composition and see how it can be used for engineering. The sciences of human action on the other hand acknowledges that the ultimate given is a value judgement by an individual. You can't really understand humans the same way you do a rock for this reason. Human problems have to be be interrupted through history or subject to theory(economics).

 

[Analyzer]

you don't reckon there's a difference between STEM and humanities?

for me, humanities is way easier. write papers juggling some concepts that your teacher likes, add neat references, and you're set. to me that's creative writing rather than science. whatever fits the lingo will pass.

i plan entering pharmacology though because humanities is a long term detriment of character and gives no jobs if you're not "networking" i.e. selling your soul. it is actually incommensurable with sincere, grinding, alienated work. one must not identify with ones wage labour at this point in economical history, lest one should succumb to petrifying self-deception.

this is of course a binary simplification. fields like political science, economics and psychology reside in a grey area.

Yeah compared to STEM there is less work. Humanities is more about getting a education in the true sense of the word and becoming an individual than something practical based. Why pharmacology though? You could always be a writer or something.

 

[OrLevitate]

The thing with the natural sciences is that it assumes an ultimate given or causality for understanding truth. You can experiment with a chemical in a lab, identify it's composition and see how it can be used for engineering. The sciences of human action on the other hand acknowledges that the ultimate given is a value judgement by an individual.

^This is all I was getting at,

-ie. I don't necessarily agree with my statement :3

My bit of data is that I prefer to study the humanities and I usually hit a bit of a tie in tests between 9 and 5 where 4's always 3rd. I haven't looked too much into how the enneagram works but I agree those types are my top 3 as per their descriptions, even though I'm pretty sure the wing system thing doesn't work that way, haven't really looked into it. Whatever, there's the data.

I think if physicists discovered the most fundamental nature of reality and there was nothing more in physics to research then people would be like ooo aaah then return to doing whatever they want. You could put it like, ok, you can time travel now, but what do you do, where do you go? Why? I think if such end of objective research-ish scenario were to happen then people would value the 'soft sciences' more, even if the soft sciences had already been totally researched too, because they're what we directly have power over, constantly. Like if someone were constantly at your side asking, "What you wanna do?" That's like what life is to me, or something. What Jennywocky said. The conductor is more interesting than the instruments. That sounds clever I'll go with that.

By the way, the humanities can be rigorous.

 

[redbaron]

If we're to take enneagram seriously then it stands to reason that Fours would naturally lean towards humanities because their basic fear is of having no identity. Hard science deliberately destroys one's sense of identity - it tells us that individual perceptions cannot be trusted. Yet the Four believes (or wants to believe) in the validity of the individual and so leans towards tasks that allow them to understand what makes people tick and by extension themselves.

In contrast to Six whose basic fear is of no support or guidance, an external framework is essential. They possess an almost perpetual self-doubt, which makes them excellent problem solvers. Working inside a strict framework paradoxically provides them unlimited freedom because they're no longer in combat with themselves. It doesn't matter what they think about it, the equations and evidence will tell them what to think - and also bring them more problems to solve. This too can be a process of understanding oneself for the Six, albeit in a different way to the Four.

Note that when I say Six/Four I'm referring to the influence of the wing in relation to a Five's primary drive to becoming competent and capable (as per their own definitions of them). The wing seems to indicate in what way a Five will seek their competency.

For personal reference, I score highly on 5+6, 8+9 and 4 generally sits in the bottom half of my enneagram preferences. I'm much more interested in hard sciences.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

not explicitly enneagram - just about the legitimacy of scientific fields, spurred by OrLevitate's comment. i am sorry if this is off topic. my enneagram according to tests has varied between 1, 4, 5, and 9. mostly i get 5w4.

well, it's partly an individual preference thing i guess. still from my perspective i loath humanities as a discipline, even though i am talented in making up that sort of crap when a situation calls for it and when there is a singular purpose to it, and furthermore can attach a personal interest to most of the concepts. this discrepancy gets me thinking that difference in inquisitive approach between the two poles of academia is not just a correlate of personal preference, corresponding discourses having equal scientific dignity. honestly i don't think studies in the humanities produce any tangible scientific knowledge and i claim that its status as academic discipline is symptom of a cultural sickness. humanities concern the stuff that must be left to private discussion or introspection and expressed in careful ethical consideration rather than ascribed objectivity, applied in public campaigns and argued by ivory tower sharpshooters who pretend to be radicals fighting oppression. wow what a mess......

i can see where you're coming from, unifying theme being the sentiment that some activities are perverted and corrupted unless kept free and personal. wish i also shared your drive to work toward a real understanding within a civil framework.

i suppose i didn't manage to make any sense here

I guess because the humanities incorporate a lot of personal involvement, perspectivism, and relativity, that their potential for scientific knowledge might seem empty but some of them seem to be precursors to more rigorous fields. Especially the bubble of "mind studies" like psychology, cognitive science, psychiatry and neuro-psychology and their relationship to neuroscience.

But anyway after reading your description I'm thinking more that people can relate to or appreciate the various fields in different ways. Some people might prefer liberal/inquisitive aspects like philosophy, or meticulous aspects like in math, creative aspects like art or writing, externally quantifiable aspects like Jennywocky described or internally experimental aspects. I'm not sure it's humanities vs hard science.

I also liked what nanook said here about fields of learning and enneatype

Spoiler

http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?p=459830

being intp does not imply digging math, but being enneagram five implies trying to escape from exposure to the boundless quality of life by becoming super intellectualized. interest in sciency subjects feel inauthentic, because the driving motivation of the interest is not to actually know everything (which would be an inherently extroverted fantasy), but to feel less and be in more control of what one has to feel and experience. unfortunately the misguided urge to escape creates agony. take an interest in the human condition instead of science, it can help to tame the enneagram passion problem while also making the best out of it's skill. find your unique authentic and creative approach to exploring this subject, don't follow a particular school. relate every subject you take interest in to your subject. can you use a math principle as a mind map for how you organize your life? can you figure out some order in your soul by projecting it onto principles of sacred geometry? don't try to become an extrovert (objective type).

i should add that the enneagram four tries to use intellectual endeavours to be interesting, to become a magnet to others. because they feel lacking if they can't get a confirmation of their value from of others. they may go as far as trying to prove superiority, just so that they are perceived as universally adorable.

this leads to a similar outcome: some interests just don't serve this unconscious enneagram motivation and the generic introverted motivation at the same time.

interests are only authentic for introverts, as long as they are really adding to the value of the subject.

the four wants to acquire wisdom that makes him valuable in a very general or universal human way. he would like to be able to provide a sticking plaster for thinkable every ouch. some of them will invent illusory shit that is universally promising and creates hope in others, who fall for it, so they consume it. but since it's illusory it does not truly serve the subject. so it feels unauthentic. less is more. if you discover whatever understanding is needed to achieve equanimity, you are adorable both to yourself and others.

the five wants the knowledge that is the most useful to the human ego, to our need to be in control of life, to be predictable of the outcome of our actions. some invent sleazy theories like the generic key to ripping off wallstreet, or earing money through file sharing. but such knowledge does not serve the subject, so it feels unauthentic. what could feel authentic would be something like the venus project, that is truly supporting human nature by introverted standards. likewise simply understanding nutrition and health.

these are all just my own perspectives on reality, i don't copy stuff straight from books. my enneagram might be a little bit different ...

 

[Direwolf]

5w6, history and psychology yes, others not so much. Love stuff like geology, chemistry, maths and physcis.

 

[Mithrandir]

Well, if we look at the wings, Fours are more prone towards the internal and subjective, personal identity, how the external world intersects with one's perceptions and experiences. Sixes are more prone towards groups and the external... so it kind of "changes the direction" of the Five focus on knowledge and comprehension. I don't think "soft science" is a bad term, but what it really means is that "hard sciences" are more quantifiable externally, they can be validated through some kind of external data and more easily focus on the details of that data; the soft science is more about bodies of knowledge consisting of conceptualized data that can provide a huge variance and hinge in some way on personal experience.

The 5w4 is a very apt description of me, and what it means for me is that I channel all of that focus and desire to understand on the experience of being human... I'm less interested in it as an end in itself as a Four would be (the Four LIVES within it and thinks in terms of it as the default), more interested in experiencing it so I can tear it apart, dissect it, figure it out, define and understand it. How people work, how people think, what drives us, what scares us... and there's an immersiveness in it, like making yourself your own lab rat in your own series of experiments so as to understand something better. That's the "detached" element that comes along with Five.

Yeah, I'm 5w4 and I'm more prone to interest in the human internal condition than external, and the experiential aspect of that plays a big part. I tend towards philosophy, psychology, history, and religion (internal) over biology, physics, math, and the like (external). To me, the internal can seem fascinating while the external tedious. It is probably the opposite for 5w6 types.

Edit: Not that both aren't fascinating to some extent, just that fascination in the external is more cursory vs the deeper fascination and exploration of the internal. I am more likely to view the external in light of the internal vs the other way.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

5w6 here, mostly interested in arts and humanities.
The only natural science i'm partially good at is biology.