Enneagram Type Six and Enneagram Type Seven are quite distinct, but they do share a number of traits, especially on a superficial level. Both are Head types. Sixes feel insecure in the world, and therefore seek guidance from someone or something. Sevens also act from a place of insecurity, but they flip the script by moving toward the world with endless ideas in mind on how to enjoy it to avoid staring too much at their inner disquiet.
One of the most obvious common traits is that both Sixes and Sevens tend, on average, to come across as very likeable. Both have often a strong sense of humor (average Fives also have a sense of humor, but it tends to be used to put down others). Sixes tend to want to ingratiate themselves to others to show that they are worth defending or at least not harming. Sevens tend not to be afraid of others but they do tend to look for the entertaining side of their experience of life.
Of the two types, Sixes are the more community-oriented or other-oriented, largely because they feel that effective networking is a positive response to the uncertainties of existence. However, their skeptical side can also end up undermining their efforts as they often blow things out of proportions in an effort to make sure they can trust others, and they are very good (sometimes too good) at poking holes in everything.
humor
Sevens are not necessarily more trusting of others, but their efforts do not revolve around trying to see who they can trust. Instead, Sevens are rather self-reliant go-getters. They know that not everyone can be trusted, but they do not sleep over it, just like they tend not to lose sleep over most negative thoughts, unless they are experiencing peculiar circumstances.
On the other hands, Sevens can sometimes become too relaxed lose their grip on their life by going into almost manic phases of unwarranted optimism, whereas Sixes are cautious and will have thought about most if not all of the consequences of their actions.
Ultimately, Sixes and Sevens move from the same inner experience of anxiety and fear, but react to it in vastly different ways: Sixes by trying to looking for remedies, Sevens by distracting themselves.
I’m currently still doing readings in exchange for recommendations for when I decide to start offering readings from this site. After a short reading with a querent we began chatting about the process of divination, and he asked me if fantasy is required to interpret the cards. I thought this was a really great question. I’m taking fantasy as a synonym with imagination, that is, the ability to conjure up images in one’s mind.
First off, we need to distinguish fantasy/imagination from (true) intuition. True intuition is relatively rare and it does not originate from the limited structure of the personality. It is, for all intents and purposes, otherworldly. Before being appropriated by boss babes on TikTok, intuition was rightfully considered a gift of the gods. It is hard to obtain and even harder to train, although the practice of divination, as it leads to the divine, does allow for the development of intuition.
Fantasy or imagination is mostly the product of neurons bouncing together, and it is at least in good part under our control (though whether imagination is also merely a personal power is up for debate. Many occultists think it isn’t, and I agree.)
Imagination plays a large role in modern magic, and, it could be argued, in the magic of all times (though with different implications and within different frameworks), but I’ll leave this discussion for another time. The point is that imagination is one among the many legitimate sources of understanding that we have at our disposal, including in the occult world.
Ordinarily, if someone asked me what’s the one thing that is required in order to become a diviner, I would answer that they need to understand the vocabulary, grammar and syntax of what is essentially a divine language.
Yet, in philosophy of language, and even more in philosophy of science, there is a concept called underdetermination. In its most frequent use, the principle of underdetermination states that, given a number of facts, there exist more than one theory that can explain those facts and account for them. How we then choose the most appropriate theory has sparked a debate that largely goes on to this day between scientists, philosophers, psychologists and anthropologists.
Something similar happens with divination: given a spread of cards, or a chart, it is often the case that more than one explanation might appear plausible at first. True, the more cards we string together, the fewer the possible interpretations are, just as a single word out of context might mean many things, but the more words there are, the more we understand the sentence.
But take a sentence like “we saw her duck“. Was she avoiding a bullet or does she live on a farm? This is a form of underdetermination, because the possible mental images evoked by the sentence cannot be reduced to the sentence itself.
Probably if we had a perfect understanding of the language of divination we would get unambiguous results, but we don’t. We must therefore use logic and context to weed out the less likely predictions, yet even so we might be left with more than one possible image of the future in mind. The word image here is key.
Can we predict a future we cannot imagine? That is, can we predict a future (or reveal a past) that we cannot put in the form of a picture or series of pictures? If one asks me: would you be able to understand a sentence you’ve never heard before? The answer is: if I know the language, yes. We hear sentences we’ve never heard before everyday and we rarely have problems. But going back to “we saw her duck”, if I didn’t know that duck can also be a verb, I would interpret the sentence univocally, as I wouldn’t be able to create a mental image corresponding to the interpretation of “duck” as verb instead of noun.
In real world languages the ambiguity is often removed by clear context. But in divination context is not always clear, meaning it is harder to exclude possible interpretations, and we need to be capable of creating mental images of all the most likely interpretations of an oracle before choosing which one is the most likely.
We need to be able to extrapolate the many possible meanings a spread can have before submitting them to inquiry. The ability to construct mental images or scenes from the divination tool we are using is consequently incredibly important. In other words, yes, imagination is key in divination.
But the imagination I am talking about is not the unbridled imagination that so many mistake for intuition, and which usually leads either to error or to unverifiable predictions. Imagination is the ability to create possible images derived from our (limited) understanding of the medium we are using, so that we can then see which one is more likely to be accurate by finding testimonies in the spread or by asking the querent.
Like all other occult arts, divination therefore requires the cooperation of both sides of the brain (to which we may add the importance of bodily grounding, but that’s a matter for another post).
Certain topics are exceedingly rare, and they should remain so, because people otherwise tend to see the supernatural at play everywhere. Traditional divination takes these topics very seriously, which is why it rarely discusses them. In most systems, a vocabulary is given to describe most situations in life, including encounters with ghosts. We are, of course, free to disbelieve, but the cards can still talk about it.
A querent asked me if there was a ghost in her (very old) apartment complex. As I said when talking about curses and hexes, the answer is almost invariably no (although, to be fair, ghosts and other entities are far more common than competent witches). Here’s the spread (it started as a three card spread, I kept adding cards until I was satisfied).
I asked the querent an open question (to avoid influencing her), that is, I asked her to describe the ghost she thought she saw. She said she thought it was the spirit of an ugly, angry woman moving in the hallways of the building. This fits very well with the Queen of Spades and Two of Spades. The Ace of Spades, aside from indicating death, is also a card of great evil.
What about the rest of the spread? Usually the Heart court cards indicate either positive spirits (God, etc.) or religious people. I asked the querent if she was planning on contacting a priest, shaman or other such figure. She said she wasn’t really thinking about it, but another tenant was.
I said that it was a good idea. Look at the King’s action: he is taking steps (Two of Clubs) by uttering words (Four of Clubs) which are positive (Nine and Ten of Hearts). But what about the Five of Spades? My sense is that the presence will not be eradicated or banished for good, since the Five of Spades is a card of imprisonment, but it will be contained in some form (the two Hearts hemming in the Spade).
The interesting thing was that, according to the querent, the other tenant (who had been living in the building for much longer than the querent) told her that many years ago they had had a problem with the same presence and had managed to somehow exorcise it.
My view is that even this time the situation will not be remedied completely, but the situation should improve by calling in someone to perform a religious ritual.
One of the questions that occupy way too many people in the esoteric community is whether divination or even magic require the person to believe in it in order for it to work. If you’ve ever watched the movie The Skeleton Key, you’ll know that this concept has seeped into the collective consciousness enough for it to find its way into mainstream products (I will not spoil the movie here, since it is actually a fun watch, but it depends heavily on its twist).
If you open most premodern books on magic, you’ll be stunned to discover that their content bears very little resemblance to the post-Golden Dawn landscape. This, by the way, is neither good nor bad. Things change. But we need to be aware of the change to avoid being unconsciously ruled by it. One clear difference is that the magician’s will1 or his imagining/manifesting faculties are barely taken into consideration in older sources, at least outwardly.
This is not to say that there aren’t sources that encourage the practitioner to be of firm mind and clear intent (after all, you’d want your doctor to focus, too, even though their focus is not what make their science work), but even those old sources do not consider, generally speaking, the magician’s mind to be the cause of the change. Broadly speaking, when dealing with sources that date back to before the invention of modern psychoanalysis and psychology, we must be extremely careful when interpreting their concept of mind, soul, psyche, etc.
An example will suffice. In his De Vita, Neoplatonic Renaissance philosopher and magus Marsilio Ficino encourages us, among other things, to “think solar thoughts”, or jovial, or venusian, depending on the aim. Similar remarks are found, in various form, in many old sources. A contemporary practitioner might be tempted to interpret Ficino’s invitation as saying that we must envision solar things in order for them to manifest. But neither the language nor the substance of this interpretation belong to his worldview.
Ficino’s view of the cosmos is essentially the same as Agrippa’s and that of many other premodern magi: we are surrounded by chains of sympathy and antipathy between universal powers (typified by the planets). When we think “solar thoughts” we are doing essentially nothing except stepping inside a current of power that has its own metaphysical reality regardless of our attitude toward it. This is because in Renaissance naturalism, the mind is essentially like the body, i.e., a part of the cosmos, and a movement of the mind is like a movement of the body, and just like the body can create a talisman or a concoction, so can the mind shape images that allow it to shower in certain currents of universal power.
Thus, the invitation to think certain thoughts found in Ficino (and others) is not a precursor to manifestation, attraction and other modern concepts, but a natural consequence of the old view of the mind and the world.
On the other hand, from a postmodern standpoint, reality is for us to create at will. Yes, I am exaggerating, but not too much. Therefore, there is the widespread idea, or at least the widespread implication, that what happens happens because we believe in it.
Let us leave magic alone for now and concentrate on divination. Does divination work because we believe in it? Well, no. Certainly divination doesn’t require the querent to believe in it in order for it to work. In fact, it is my belief that, considering how many frauds there are in this field, a querent should be borderline psychotic to blindly believe in divination without a healthy dose of scepticism.
What about diviners? Do they need to believe in divination in order for it to work? That’s complicated, in my view. On the surface of it I would argue that, again, no, we don’t need to believe in divination for it to work. Divination systems work because they have their own internal consistency. The most obvious is Natal Astrology, which presents us with an objective set of symbols that have nothing to do with the manipulation of counters on the part of the diviner.
On the other hand, we need to allow for the fact that divination is not a mechanic set of behaviors, especially with the overwhelming majority of divination systems that do require manipulation (cartomancy, geomancy, dice, etc.) As I often repeat on this blog, divination is and remains something extraordinary. The honest desire for an answer, or at least for a picture of the future, tends to guarantee a crisp and clear answer. This is because the honest desire for an answer allows us to honestly connect with the symbols in a way that makes them fall in the appropriate order.
The querent doesn’t need to be honest in his or her desire, unless they are also the diviner. But if the diviner does not have at least a degree of confidence in what he or she is doing, then the question they put to the system is not the surface question (e.g., “Does X love Y?”) but “Do you really work?” which is an impossible question for the system to answer (if the answer is no, then the system does work).
Even then, I would be cautious in overexaggerating the importance of the diviner’s attitude. As I believe I have mentioned, one of the ways my teacher trained me was by asking me to discover secrets about her past. Clearly, the exercise was not meant to discover something new that might benefit my querent or me, but rather to build my confidence and skill. Yet it worked, and it worked well. Maybe the diviner doesn’t need to believe in divination (I know I am always skeptical until proven right), but they do need to at least be open to the idea that this is a legitimate way of receiving information, just enough to enter into the system rather than operating it from the outside as a scientist would manipulate a bunch of molecules.
My general belief at this point is that the esoteric arts do not require our consent in order to work, but they are also not the product of the mechanistic application of abstract principles. It is indeed a fine balance.
MQS
Let’s leave aside the fact that the concept of Will found in modern magic is actually more complex than what it appears to be on the surface ↩︎
Enneagram Type Five and Enneagram Type Nine can share some similarities, though they remain vastly different. Nines are a Body type, who seeks to maintain a sense of harmony within themselves and their surrounding by avoiding conflicts that would undermine their sense of autonomy. Fives are a Head type, who withdraw from the world to observe it from a distance and to gain skills that will ideally allow them to succeed.
Both Fives and Nines withdraw from others, but in different ways. Average Nines withdraw their energy and suppress their agenda to avoid it clashing with that of other people. Average Fives withdraw themselves, often physically, or at least emotionally, from social situations.
Nines, however, generally remain friendly and often go with other people’s flow, as long as it doesn’t threaten their inner sense of calm. Fives, on the other hand, have a strong sense of self as opposed to all other, refuse to be swept along in their flow and tend to have a supercilious and combative demeanor that most Nines would never display.
Withdrawing
Internally, Nines usually pacify themselves with happy or comforting thoughts and a positive, if vague, attitude. They tend to think in terms of generalities, which makes them very good at finding common grounds with all humanity at an almost archetypal level. Fives are internally high-strung and constantly mulling over some thought or theory, they disdain generalities and are as laser-focused on details as they are preoccupied with finding their universal significance. Furthermore, in general Nines will stop themselves from trespassing into “scary thought territory”, while Fives will usually willingly go there.
The decisive difference between Nines and Fives is in what drives the two types. Fives are driven by knowledge. At their best they are as wise as they are knowledgeable, at their worst they are obnoxious collectors of obscure trivia. Nines are motivated by peace. At their best they are deeply embracing of themselves and others, at their worst they are dollar-store mystics detached from reality.
Enneagram Type Five and Enneagram Type Eight are apparently very different, so much so that they are each other’s arrow on the Enneagram symbol: Five is Eight’s stress point, Eight is Five’s growth point. Fives are a Head type, concerned with security, and tend to find it by removing themselves from the world and observing it from a distance. Eights are a Body type, whose drive for independence leads them to asserting themselves in most situations, even and especially when there is resistance against them.
Interestingly, both Fives and Eights assert the energy of their center: Fives assert the intellectual urge of the Head center, Eights the instinctual urge of the Body center. In this, they both tend to break down opposition on the plane on which they operate: Eights break down physical opposition, often by asserting themselves on others more or less fiercely; Fives assert their mind’s right to be the judge of the truth of this or that idea by breaking it down, rarely accepting it as a given. Both Eights and Fives can be confrontational when unhealthy: Eights physically, Fives intellectually.
Assertion
Both types are strongly concerned with truth. Fives seek to develop a true appraisal of reality beyond social or even academic conventions. Eights usually have a very instinctual conception of the truth (their famous bullshittometer). Fives’ danger is of getting lost in the hair-splitting byzantinisms of their mental process; Eights’ danger is of failing to realize that sometimes their instincts do fail them and not everything is as simple and black-and-white as their guts tell them. Eights usually tend to simplify, Fives to complexify. Both excesses are best curbed.
Socially, both Eights and Fives have an individualistic, maverick-like streak, and both can be socially awkward and be somewhat timid. Yes, this also applies to Eights: as soon as they feel they are out of their depth Eights tend to become withdrawn and insecure, like regular Fives, often out of fear of being called out for being stupid or incompetent (this is Five’s fear, which is Eight’s stress point). Usually, though, Eights, while not necessarily social, tend to be imposing and even demanding. Fives, on the other hand, are almost always distant and even remove themselves physically from contact with others. Fives who have consciously worked on their social skills may, however, develop some of Eight’s bodily confidence.
Danielle Johnson‘s posts on social media were like those of most popular astrology influencers: cheap mystical drivel devoid of any serious study and insight, constantly hyping up the next big astrological nothing-burger. I’ve known enough people like her in my life to know that this kind of fraudster is the worst exactly because they tend to buy the crap they peddle. Like many cult leaders, they become pleasantly accustomed to the smell of their own farts.
I am not going to examine her tragedy as a whole. You can look it up yourself if you want. Suffice to say that she ended her boyfriend’s and child’s lives, as well as her own. All because of an eclipse she thought was “the epitome of spiritual warfare” where people needed “to pick a side” in the upcoming apocalypse.
For sure there is enough going wrong in the world at present that new millenarian movements pop up from all religious and political directions. Furthermore, it is not unlikely that Johnson suffered from some kind of mental condition.
But there is more to this type of behavior. No one who seriously studies history can believe there was ever a golden age where nothing went wrong, nor there ever will be. These are the dangers of utopianism as opposed to pragmatism: in the name of something that was or will be, the utopian believer feels justified in trampling over others, either rationally (like the left-wing and right-wing dictators of yore) or psychotically.
But, again, there is more. There is a widespread malaise in the “spiritual” milieu at present, in spite of its ever growing popularity on social media. This malaise is the culmination of a historical process of decoupling of reason and spirituality. I have already touched upon this issue elsewhere.
Since official science embraced meterialism in the late XVIII century, those who believe there is more to life have found themselves without an intellectual foundation for their beliefs, and have therefore become prone to accepting any delusion as fact. This is relatively unprecedented in the history of humanity. Not that knowledge and spirituality have otherwise always enjoyed a frictionless relationship, but there had never been so stark and unanimous a rejection of the spiritual in the scientific community.
How the spiritual community tried to cope with this abandonment is paradigmatic. If you read many XVIII and early XIX century occultists, you will often find desperate attempts at fitting their ideas into the tight dress of the new scientific language. Spiritualism and vitalism, which is how occultism survived until around the 1960s are, in many ways, the evil twins of scientific materialism: they are groundless irrationalism masquerading as legitimate scientific concepts (electromagnetism, mesmerism, ‘energy’, etc.)
Yet, for all their attempts at sounding scientific, these authors have never managed to convince anyone who wasn’t already convinced. Furthermore, their attempts at proving, for instance, that this or that scientific discovery is foreshadowed in this or that spiritual doctrine made them look like asses when said discoveries were later disproved and replaced with better scientific theories–because, and this is something many occultists failed to understand, science in the modern sense ceased dealing with the eternally true in favor of ever-improving approximations of what’s likely to be the case. This is what makes modern science effective, but also what ‘spiritual seekers’ desperate for answers don’t want to hear.
Then along rolled the New Age, and the already washed-out spiritual movement started supplementing its diet with saccarine platitudes and politically correct, ill-digested mish-mashes of doctrines coming from all over the world washed down with copious drafts of unproved psychology. Any attempt at using reason became futile, or even frowned upon as a non-enlightened stance. And this is where we are now.
The medieval and Renaissance magus was as much an occultist and diviner as he was a doctor, a scientist, a philosopher, a political strategist, a war counsellor and many, many more things. In Ancient Greece, many great magi were also great philosophers and scientists (Empedocles and Pythagoras come to mind). Apparently, the contemporary spiritual guru just needs a couple of self-help concepts with a spirituar flair and he is qualitifed to tell people they need to “pick a side in the upcoming apocalypse”.
So, what is the solution? I do not know. I do not believe I have one, especially not at the collective level. All I know is that irrationalism is not the blood that sustains spirituality. it is merely the electric shock that makes its corpse convulse and appear to be alive. I also know that the future of occultism, magic and spirituality lies with few individuals who are capable of using their head rather than with desperate masses of unhinged spiritual seekers (“unhinged” because their life hinges on nothing) who let any “astrology influencer” peddle cheap illusions to them.
Many people of the ‘spiritual but not religious’ milieu tend to believe they invented intuition, or that intuition came into existence when glossy oracle cards with gaudy images and inspirational quotes started being published–the kind that was especially en vogue before Doreen Virtue went from a fundamentalist with a deck of cards in her hands to a fundamentalist without a deck of cards in her hands.
But, believe it or not, intuition is a concept with a legitimate philosophical history. It is present, either implicitly or explicitly, in the epistemology (theory of how knowledge happens) of many great traditional Western and non Western philosophers.
If had to provide a generalization of what the tradition meant by intuition, I would say that it’s the immediate apprehension of universal principles and truths. It had nothing to do with the stream-of-consciousness-like association of ideas that many moderns mistake for psychic ability.
Old philosophers held that true intuition could only happen when someone had developed all their human faculties (including, and especially, reason) to their utmost degree, so that such faculties, having been tamed and trained, fell into place and were ready to receive truths otherwise reserved to the gods. In other words, intuition was the reward of the flourishing human.
Nowadays, “I’m intuitive” is usually synonymous with “I’m incapable of simple deduction but I am also deep up my ass and don’t take well to criticism.” Back in the day, intuition was regarded as the efflorescence of the rightly cultivated mind. Put simply, in the past intuition was considered suprarational. Now it is implicitly considered irrational.
So much so that intuition is today relegated to psychic exercise, whereas in days of yore prophecy through psychic means was regarded as a wholly separate matter: the famous prophetess of the Oracle of Delphi, for instance, entered a state of ‘enthusiasm’, that is, of literal divine possession, whereas intuition was, essentially, a gift of God to the philosopher who had educated himself to the point where his excelling human faculties grazed on the superior sphere of divine knowledge, allowing some of it to filter down to him.
This fact is especially clear when we consider the old conception of the cosmos as an onion-like set of emanated spheres, with humans in the middle, capable of either falling deeper or rising above. But the modern intuitive moves in a world that has no clear up or down and where over a century of psychologizing everything has planted in people’s minds the impression that everything is in their head and that, therefore, if it’s in their head it’s true. We could summarize this by saying that intuition in the older sense required people to get out of their ass and become bigger than they were, whereas by today’s standards it requires them to entangle themselves even further in their delusions.
Enneagram Type Five and Enneagram Type Seven are very different, but they do share some connections, so much so that Seven is the stress point of Five and Five the growth point of Seven. Both are Head types. Fives are intellectual individualists who remove themselves from the world to feel safe from it. Sevens are exciteable planners who seek to escape their inner sense of fear or pain by taking refuge into the opportunities the world seems to offer them.
Both Fives and Sevens are Head-driven, but in vastly different way. Fives are THE brainy type, as they spend the majority of their time in their heads, thinking odd ideas and formulating concepts almost as an aim in itself. For Sevens the mind is declassed to the rank of means in formulating plans for enjoyment and flight from (or rationalization of) the things the Seven fears.
Both Fives and Sevens are very good at establishing connections between disparate things, subjects and ideas that few would ever think of mentioning in the same sentence. Still, they do it in vastly different ways and following different avenues. Sevens usually move on the surface of things, casting a wide net on their multiplicity in a bid to explore as many of them as the Seven wishes to. They enjoy this sense of variety and love having options and freedom, and this almost inevitably leads them to heaping up odd experiences and ideas in never-before-seen patterns. They are, in a way, the Renaissance men and women of the Enneagram.
Fives, on the other hand, delve deeply, with an almost surgical focus, into a single abstruse and socially disregarded idea that interests them until they have broken it into its smallest possible components, which they can reassemble, often with a taste for paradox, into widely different ideas. Then they break them apart again and start over in the same endless process of analysis and synthesis. Since, at the end of the day, everything in the universe is connected with everything else, Fives end up (or at least aim at) possessing the Whole within a single concept by leveraging a single, obsessively developed core idea that allows them access to all other ideas. In other words, Sevens tend to be exploratory, Fives tend to be conceptual.
The Mind’s Eye
Socially, the two types are very different. Sevens, while not necessarily extroverts, are outgoing, in the very real sense that they go out of themselves and toward others, often directly if not bluntly. Fives tend to withdraw from social contact in a hermit-like fashion.
Furthermore, both types have a keen awareness of their needs, but take care of them in starkly different ways. Fives generally minimize their needs in order to avoid offering themselves up to the vagaries of good and bad fortune, but in pursuing this course they often end up withered and emotionally dry. Sevens on the other hand are usually anything except minimalistic, tending more toward extravagance, as they fear confinement, because confinement and lack of external fulfillment force them to bear witness to a less than happy inner reality that, in one way or another, they refuse to confront.
Enneagram Type Five and Enneagram Type Six belong both to the Head triad, yet they give off markedly different energies. Fives actively employ their Head energy, using it to make sense of the world from a distance. Sixes often suppress their Head energy, don’t trust their own judgment and seek someone or something that will explain reality to them.
Being both Head types, both Fives and Sixes deal at their core with fear of the world around them.Fives thus retreat from the world into the safe realm of their own intellect, from which they observe life without being touched by it. It is often held that Fives are taking time off from real life in order to look for something, an idea or strategy, with which they may join the others and be useful or have a fighting chance, but while some great Fives really do come up with revolutionary ideas that changed the world, most Fives become lost and almost hooked on their own thinking power.
Sixes deal with fear differently. They don’t trust their own mind, so they seek structures outside of them, whether social, political, religious or other kind. For them, life is a sea of difficult choices, risks and dangers, a place where nothing seems certain. They therefore become engaged in an endless quest for the person, idea, group or thing that will give them clear answers that they don’t need to question anymore. Once they have found (or if they find) something that stands up to their scrutiny, they espouse it with militant fervor.
Fives tend to be philosophical and rational (though not always reasonable). Their approach to ideas and concepts is seldom practical, and they tend build up mental constructs not to employ them but to sharpen their overactive mind’s claws on them. Their attitude toward ideas is often playful and nihilistic. Sixes on the other hand are more practically oriented because their sense of fear is less rarefied and is almost palpable, as if they needed to actually survive from moment to moment. Their attempt at tearing down ideas and concepts is not playful at all: they keep poking holes in everything in hopes of finding the one thing where holes cannot be poked.
From a social standpoint, the difference between Fives and Sixes is often marked. Fives are withdrawn, remote, aloof. Even at average levels they are often socially inept, nor do they care to work on this aspect of their life, as they consider it inessential. Sixes, on the other hand, while often questioning people’s motivations, put on a friendly and even cheerful facade, because they are aware of how important networking is in dealing with the uncertainties of the world.
In reality, both Fives and Sixes are mistrustful of people. However, as far as Fives are concerned, rather than mistrusting people’s motives, like Sixes do, they tend to mistrust other people’s ability to understand reality better than them. On the other hand, a Six’s skepticism is generally oriented at people’s loyalties and competence in providing answers the Six can rely on. For instance, in an educational context, a Six pupil may not believe the teacher is good and is, in a way, faking it, while a Five pupil will often think they are better.
