Announcement

**Daeva** · 04-26-2020, 09:48 PM

They did it! They actually managed to do it!

They typed an 8 at 4.

Ladies and gentlemen. R&H, the leading authority in the Enneagram field.

(photos of Lars von Trier, an E 8 typed at E 4 by the Enneagram Institute (R&H))

**Animal** · 04-27-2020, 04:15 PM

Now let's delve into their four description.
https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/type-4/

Type Four in Brief
Fours are self-aware, sensitive, and reserved. They are emotionally honest, creative, and personal, but can also be moody and self-conscious. Withholding themselves from others due to feeling vulnerable and defective, they can also feel disdainful and exempt from ordinary ways of living. They typically have problems with melancholy, self-indulgence, and self-pity. At their Best: inspired and highly creative, they are able to renew themselves and transform their experiences.

Basic Fear: That they have no identity or personal significance
Basic Desire: To find themselves and their significance (to create an
identity)
Enneagram Four with a Three-Wing: "The Aristocrat"
Enneagram Four with a Five-Wing: "The Bohemian"

Key Motivations: Want to express themselves and their individuality, to create and surround themselves with beauty, to maintain certain moods and feelings, to withdraw to protect their self-image, to take care of emotional needs before attending to anything else, to attract a "rescuer." The Meaning of the Arrows (in brief)

When moving in their Direction of Disintegration (stress), aloof Fours suddenly become over-involved and clinging at Two. However, when moving in their Direction of Integration (growth), envious, emotionally turbulent Fours become more objective and principled, like healthy Ones. Learn more about the arrows.

Examples:

Type Four Overview

We have named this type The Individualist aspects of their self-imagehow unlike everyone else they areFantasy Self

**Animal** · 04-27-2020, 04:48 PM

There are myriad problems with this description, but I will break it down into three main problems.

PROBLEM I: Four is not an Attachment Type

Exhibit A.
The word 'attached' and 'clinging' is ever-present in their brief four description. They are clearly coming from an angle of attachment or clinging to something - that is my first contention.

Indeed, Fours can become so attached to longing and disappointment that they are unable to recognize the many treasures in their lives.

But the poor hound was so attached to its bone that it refused to let go of it and soon starved to death.

When moving in their Direction of Disintegration (stress), aloof Fours suddenly become over-involved and clinging at Two.

Exhibit B.
Here are a few descriptive sentences that also arguably allude to the idea of clinging and attachment, and 'holding on' for too long.

to attract a rescuer

to maintain certain moods and feelings

By attempting to hold on to specific moods and express others, Fours believe that they are being true to themselves.

One of the biggest challenges Fours face is learning to let go of feelings from the past; they tend to nurse wounds and hold onto negative feelings about those who have hurt them.

This identity 'as a suffering victim' is an identity completely dependent on feedback from others and who they are in relation to others.

To acknowledge their good qualities would be to lose their sense of identity (as a suffering victim) and to be without a relatively consistent personal identity (their Basic Fear).

Apparently, according to RH, the solution to fourness is 'stop clinging.'

PROBLEM II: Fours are not others-focused.

Exhibit A.
Here are some descriptions implying, or flat out stating, that the fours' identity is built upon comparison to others or a general 'others-focus.' This is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of a four needing an individual, separate and original identity - so which one is it?
I will point out that all of these quotes fit well with Ichazo's enneagram 9 description -- as he called 9 the "over-nonconformist."

We have named this type The Individualist because Fours maintain their identity by seeing themselves as fundamentally different from others.

Fours feel that they are unlike other human beings, and consequently, that no one can understand them or love them adequately.

Nevertheless, Fours often report that they feel they are missing something in themselvesall of which they see in others, seemingly in abundance.

This is 'over-nonconformist to a T.

If, over time, such validation remains out of reach, Fours begin to build their identity around how unlike everyone else they are. The outsider therefore comforts herself by becoming an insistent individualist: everything must be done on her own, in her own way, on her own terms.

Sounds like a 9 digging their heels.
Exhibit B.
These quotes focus on a need to be 'understood' by others and receive certain feedback from others for their image - which is closer to 3 than to four. The principle of ORIGINALITY and AUTHENTICITY is completely lost here, as the description shows someone wrestling with a social persona or the need to be understood, rather than with the need to express what is authentic about them.

Fours feel that they are unlike other human beings, and consequently, that no one can understand them or love them adequately.

They feel that they lack a clear and stable identity, particularly a social persona that they feel comfortable with.

This is more 3ish, someone longing to be seen for who they really are rather than for the deceptive image they have shown the world.

they long for someone to come into their lives and appreciate the secret self that they have privately nurtured and hidden from the world.

This is pure attachment. 'Trying on identity for size' and basing it on others is directly opposed to what four is about, which is the need to express what they feel is their authentic identity.

In the course of their lives, Fours may try several different identities on for size, basing them on styles, preferences, or qualities they find attractive in others. But underneath the surface, they still feel uncertain about who they really are.

Again, this is pure attachment. Not all attachment types base their identity on emotional reactions, per se; but the idea of something adapting and shifting, and remaining formless, is much more 3-6-9. Think about it in the simplest terms. Three is adaptable. Six is skeptical (poking holes in any identity they may decide upon). Nine is ever-flowing, seeing all points of view, with a dichotomy around stubbornly upholding one view vs. seeing the validity in all of them. Yet none of this 'shifting ever-changing' stuff has anything to do with four, with a need for authenticity, with envy, nor with frustration/idealistic types, nor with reactivity. There is simply nothing here for four.

pretending to smile because real smiles would not come to me. I have had a constant longing for whatever I cannot have. My longings can never become fulfilled because I now realize that I am

PROBLEM III: Fours don't necessarily suffer from depression, and the type should not be pathologized.

Exhibit A.
These quotes are about someone with depression, and unrelated to type.

Fours typically have problems with a negative self-image and chronically low self-esteem.

This one is downright dehumanizing - not even a dog would behave this way. And again, how is this related to identity or authenticity? Or even image for that matter?

There is a Sufi story that relates to this about an old dog that had been badly abused and was near starvation. One day, the dog found a bone, carried it to a safe spot, and started gnawing away. The dog was so hungry that it chewed on the bone for a long time and got every last bit of nourishment that it could out of it. After some time, a kind old man noticed the dog and its pathetic scrap and began quietly setting food out for it. But the poor hound was so attached to its bone that it refused to let go of it and soon starved to death.

Fours are in the same predicament. As long as they believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with them, they cannot allow themselves to experience or enjoy their many good qualities.

Exhibit B.
This quote is about someone who essentially gave up on life. This is not type related, as 'giving up' on actualizing one's dreams is a part of depression - but if it is to be related to type, giving up specifically on one's art and self-image is specifically un-fourish.
Due to the line to 1, fours will spend their time chiseling themselves into the kind of person they want to be. They will bleed in order to BECOME their self-image and embody it. What is described here is more sloth - a refusal to actually put effort in to actualize a fantasy. Although it is true that fours will have an idealized self image, they will turn that image into their work, whereas other types are more likely to see a big split between their ideal self and the image they show the world. Four, specifically, molds themself into that image, rather than sighing passively that the image isn't real. That's why four is an image type - because much like three, they will do anything to embody the image they want. The difference is that a four's idealized image is based on an internal ideal (line to 1), whereas the 3's self image must, in some way, fulfill society's expected ideals so that the three has a sense of 'being valued' from the outside. Of course, there are aspects of 3 within four; but the four will feel valued from having created this self-image and made it real. They will do this at the expense of all else. So, the quote is not fourish but rather, sloth-ish. It's lazy. Perhaps there are fours like this, due to extraneous factors such as a 9 fix, a disability or depression, but this is not a defining marker of four.

They attempt to compensate for this by cultivating a Fantasy Self Vladimir Horowitz. Unfortunately, his commitment to practicing fell far short of his fantasized self-image, and he was often embarrassed when people asked him to play for them. His actual abilities, while not poor, became sources of shame.

**Animal** · 04-27-2020, 05:29 PM

So, if four is not about 'wanting to be unique compared to others,' 'trying on identities' and 'feeling sad,' then you may be wondering, what is it about?

We have a whole thread discussing this, but I will try to explain in simple terms, where I believe that R&H went wrong - and diverted away from the original writers, Ichazo and Naranjo, in their treatment of four. I will delve much more deeply into this over time, but here is my preliminary sense of what four is about and where RH went wrong.

First, I will post Ichazo's description so you know the barebones text that I'm referring to. I will say that Ichazo's descriptions are short and require massive interpretation and contextualizing in order to make sense. But along with others on this forum, I am doing my best to wrestle with the information that we have, and come to a rational and workable description of each type. The important thing to focus on is the central mechanisms, not "this type does this and that type does that." What is the central meaning of each type? I am working my ass off on this, as are others on this forum -- but I'm not there yet. So this post is very informal. I am actually copying the text of this post from a PM chat with Mahat where I explained some of my initial thoughts. Anyway, here is Ichazo.

Alas, this is my over-simplified view of what four is really about. It's really important to address this in great detail, and I feel like it should be sourced to show that I'm in line with the older authors and why I believe this, but that takes a lot of energy and time - so I want to at least post the basic premise - which is that four has absolutely nothing to do with uniqueness.

'Uniqueness' is an attachment concept - for one cannot be unique without comparing themselves to others. In order for anything to be unique, there has to be a 'norm' standard to compare it to. And that "norm standard," and deviating from it, is simply outside of the four's focus. Therefore, four is not about uniqueness but rather, a need for authenticity and getting trapped in the need to express oneself authentically. All reactive types share this focus on authenticity, but four is an image type who is focused on it - meaning that they want their image to mirror what they feel is authentic inside of them. So the catch is that when you're trying to express what's authentic, then that authentic thing becomes an 'idea of what is authentic' and turns into a bonsai garden - an imitation of something that was real, rather than simply 'being' what it is.

This is why Ichazo brings up the dichotomy of argumentative vs. shallow for fours - as he is referencing an expression of your 'real' self vs. a shallow imitation. Argumentativeness is a quality of four, as they have a need to express themselves in general. They may be quiet or outgoing, loud or private - but either way, when they are interacting, they will be automatically wired to express what's inside - which is not only their identity but also any ideas they may have, their 'personal point of view.' The focus on expressing their pov authentically leads to an intense subjectivity, since the four is over-focused on their own expression and making sure they do it 'correctly' (read, line to 1) -- rather than actually considering the validity of said argument in a more objective way. And this is why Ichazo calls four the over-reasoner. "My authentic self is....... because......"

Ichazo also points out that the path of equanimity (being more balanced between your feelings and reason) leads to holy origin. When you reach origin, then you're expressing something so true about yourself (origin) that it's primal and it also mirrors the truth of humanity (shared origin). You strip yourself so bare, and so real, that others can see themselves in that reflection. So it's about the path from an 'attempt' at one's own personal authenticity, to true origin.

Therefore, four is not about focusing on "uniqueness" - because uniqueness is about comparing yourself to a norm outside of yourself or an idea of what other people think. The exact PROBLEM for four is the LACK of this, the over-attention to the self, and the self's authenticity. So the result of expressing something you feel is "truly you" regardless what they think, at ANY cost, will end up with a high likelihood of a very unique person in the eyes of others, but on the inside, four isn't sitting around thinking about being unique.

The idea that four's identity was about being different from others originated with RH, as far as I can tell, but I'd like to go over the sources more carefully. As far as I can tell right now, this idea wasn't really floating around with Naranjo, Ichazo, Almaas & holy ideas etc. I have made this argument since 2012 when I originally realized I was a four, but back then I didnt realize Ichazo came first, then Naranjo, then this then that. Now that I have caught up on more research and learned more from the amazing people around me, especially Roshan -- I understood the progression of events more, and what happened between the writers and authors. I'd still like to research this more on my own. To be clear, I have read all of these books, in most cases more than once - but the relationships between authors behind the scenes has played a crucial part here, which needs to be examined further.

Nonetheless, it clicked for me recently that uniqueness was nowhere to be seen in Ichazo's short description. I suspect it was added in by a 9 (Don Riso) who thought he was a four due to Naranjo's cuckolding of 9. So the issue is that Ichazo never finished his descriptions and Naranjo, his student, cuckolded the 9 description -- and so, anyone reading Naranjo would not type at 9 since the type was dehumanized. Therefore Don Riso assumed he was a four, the next best bet, and wrote these books -- which made the four description very 9ish, and caused a complete erasure of the meaning of four. This is why, when I sign into the facebook group where Russ Hudson and other teachers hang out, and they put up a poll, 85% of the people in the group voted that they were fours. Because of the R&H description making four too human and too inclusive, to make up for the errors in Naranjo, who dehumanized 9 and perhaps other types. So this is the mess we're dealing with.

Of course, that's a separate discussion from "what four is," since of course ideas can evolve, and sometimes better ideas pop up later. But it's obvious from the results that RH four did not lead to better ideas. I think the original authors were much more on point. Ichazo said the main mechanism for four was sublimation.

sublimation

[ suhb-luh-mey-shuh?n ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR sublimation ON THESAURUS.COM

noun

Psychology. the diversion of the energy of a sexual or other biological impulse from its immediate goal to one of a more acceptable social, moral, or aesthetic nature or use.
Chemistry. the act, fact, or process of subliming(def 9).
a purification or refinement; ennoblement.

I agree with Ichazo, on a personal level. (I used to say that relationships were not the place for my feelings. They belong only in my art.)

Fours sublimate their feelings and desires into a more acceptable, beautiful and lovable means in order to be expressed, which is also the 'fakeness' of expressing their 'authenticity,' arguably, although there is obviously also good in that (like not bothering people with your feelings and making art).
So this is where envy comes in. We've noticed over and over that other types envy "people" much more directly than fours do. So in a conversation last night, we were wondering - is four even related to envy? Ichazo brings up envy for a lot of other types, actually. But I think what envy is in the context of four - it's longing.

Other people are more likely to envy people directly. Some twos really encompass the Invidia "old hag with poison eyes" -- actually we're noticing both 1 and 2 have this in spades. Two, for example, is the wicked witch envying the young princess, because she can still be loved. But four envies a whole other life. A whole other "Erosia" or ideal world. So the reason for the idolatry & idolization, such as worshipping a person who you're obsessed with, is that this person, this artwork, this beauty -- symbolizes an entryway into this other more ideal life that the four constantly longs and pines for. Theres no point in envying that girl's hair, or that guy's career, when neither one of them come close to the ideal that the four has been cut off and exiled from.

The sin should really be "desire" to explain it more directly. Other types also can be desirous and almost everyone burns with desire when they're turned on or hormonal, but four, being more focused on the need to express and understand their "self," will really OBSESS and make their whole life about this burning, ongoing, wet desire. And that is what drives them. Another way to view this is 'melancholy.' Fours find beauty in suffering and may transform that beauty into an aesthetic in order to reach the sublime.

What would the 4 be longing for?
I could say "a return to origin." This is what erosia is, for example.
So they'll find symbols - people, artists, parts of nature, colors - things that express both the lost origin itself, and the path back to it, and their own exile from it. It's not about "this is boring - I want to be somewhere else" -- which is more 7, entitlement. But it's about a world where the four's true self could be what it is meant to be - beautiful. And this return to origin would resolve the feeling of exile.

Needless to say there's also overlap here with 5 alienation, but to reference the idea of moving through the points -- after being exiled, the five seeks to understand what happened and what they are. But if you look at these pictures, these people's eyes, they're all longing to return to that origin

https://www.pinterest.com/the_daeva/enneagram/4/

They're dressed up often in symbols that call to their origin. They're not dressed up in outfits that say "i'm unique!" Daeva found pretty 'clean' photos of these people so that the focus would be on body language. But you can see the people in this folder (keeping in mind some are tentative and eventually will be up for discussion), these are people who REALLY DRESS UP to stand out:

https://www.pinterest.com/the_daeva/enneagram/2/

2, 3, 6 and 7 are the glamor folders. Also, Sx types in many categories will dress up - but let's talk about Sx 4 such as Maria Callas. Her outfits compared to Sx 2s or Sx 7s are more somber and antiquated... like showing a lost civilization.. evoking Egypt or Queens of old. You'll see these nostalgic outfits for four too. A lot of fours now are wearing cowboy hats. Who knew!? But perhaps it's because of the lost culture of America. I hadn't realized this consciously. But perhaps by wearing a cowboy hat, I am effectively mourning a time that is lost. "The land of the free." And I also have Native American jewelry and clothes all my life- an aesthetic that borrows from 'times of old,' but it's subtle. The cowboy hat, the Native American Jewelry, both draw on the same principle, because of the wildness and freedom and rawr that I so worship, and the spiritual aspects, connection to nature - to origin. And that's Sp. For Callas it's connection to true beauty, feminine power etc, truly commanding one's soul as a woman. But she evokes something beyond that, like a swan, and the sadness is more primal.

Mahat had said in chat:
People associate goth with 4. Like 1800s goth is 4 because it was part of the romantic movement. But modern goth is post-punk and it does retain the original romantic era attitude, but the modern stuff is more 6.

I continued to respond:
Six will always evoke a touch of rebellion whereas four is evoking something 'more natural than now' or a time lost, some nostalgia; something more natural than now.* Six is also willing to be mechanical, with its connection to 3 mechanical heart.

This is a better way to phrase "what are they longing for?" the return to origin -- which often is symbolized by a connection to a more pristine time when people were made of better stuff (1).

**Animal** · 04-27-2020, 09:37 PM

Triad Components of type four according to R&H:

Image/Heart (2, 3, 4)
Reactive (4, 6, 8)
Frustration/Ideal (1, 4, 7)
Withdrawn/Ego (4, 5, 8)

What this means, essentially, is:

As an image type, one's most basic need is to create and uphold a image of self that has value, in order to compensate for the shame of being without value. The four's image will be based on a need for authentic expression (as a reactive type) combined with a need to meet an ideal (as a frustration type) - and the origins of that image come from within (as a withdrawn type).

How this meshes with Ichazo:

Ichazo's simple dichotomies are in line with these basic components. Four is the over-reasoner whose spiritual path is a return to origin.

A four is defined by a fixation on melancholy - finding beauty and pleasure in longing, over-indulging emotions and transforming their sadness into beauty. These emotions are highlighted in the four's psyche, and the four's defense mechanism of sublimation makes them likely to express them through an aesthetic, through the arts, or through embodying an identity which expresses or symbolizes this experience. Through over-reasoning, the four weaves this melancholic experience into a narrative, or an identity. This is their 'hall of mirrors.'

The dichotomy of 'argumentative vs shallow' makes sense with the combination of reactivity, idealism, & withdrawnness. The four is argumentative because of a need to express their authentic point of view, but this can be shallow because it lacks context within reality, or the world outside themselves. Hence the dichotomy of 'sophistry and superficiality.' The image itself is exactly this: a self-image that is worn on the four's sleeve, making an implicit "argument" about who the four actually is. Yet as deep as this argument may seem, if you evaluate it from within its own logic; it is actually superficial. The four, the "over-reasoner," is in control of the narrative around their image. The four's "self made image" itself is sophistry - a plausible but fallacious presentation of "authenticity."

The four gets trapped in this analysis of who they are and what they are expressing, rather than having true clarity about themselves and the world, based on sober, objective laws of the universe. This is why they are liberated through clarity and equanimity. The "reactive" need to express and seek the "idealized" authentic image, along with the "withdrawn" and subjective analysis, are all balanced with reason so that the four can simply be, and think clearly. The "argument," and the narrative around their self-image, may be set aside in favor of simply seeing, and elucidating, what is.

From there, the four achieves true originality. Originality is the combination of returning to your own 'true origin' - as in, who you authentically are, without all the reasoning and analyzing - and recognizing that this origin is shared with everyone. At the same time, originality implies that there is true creativity in expressing what is real about you. Thus the four recognizes that each individual is connected to the All, and from there, can tell their personal story from a place of connecting to all humanity.

When you break down four to its basic components, the themes are:

Expression (false depth)
Subjectivity (Withdrawnness, over-reasoning)
Melancholia (Finding the beauty in sadness)
Envy (Jealousy, frustrated longing)
Argumentativeness & Sophistry (Reactivity)
Wanting to express something authentic (therefore becoming inauthentic)
Sublimation (Sublimating feelings into art - hopefully to attain catharsis)
Equanimity (Balancing emotion with reason)
Originality (recognizing your own true origin as an individual, which is also interconnected with all)

The main characteristic Ichazo talked about is Melancholia. R&H appropriated this to mean 'depression and sadness,' but when used more accurately, a melancholic temperament is picky, fussy person with extreme moods and impossible ideals. And melancholy is not about depression and giving up, but rather, about finding beauty in suffering. Not only did RH's description demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of melancholy, but also, it failed to address the other components which they themselves have assigned to four. (Reactivity, idealism, etc.)

Avonmora found this amazing description of melancholy, which highlights my point.

https://www.contempaesthetics.org/ne...?articleID=214

"One of the clearest differences between depression and melancholy is that depression is an emotional state of resignation, whereas melancholy is not. When we feel depressed we feel unmotivated, unable to complete even the simplest task and unable to see any way forward. It is a pessimistic state that involves pain. By contrast, melancholy is not such a debilitating mood, rather it involves the pleasure of reflection and contemplation of things we love and long for, so that the hope of having them adds a touch of sweetness that makes melancholy bearable (while misery is not). Its reflective or thoughtful aspect also makes it somehow productive. Melancholy is something we even desire from time to time, for it provides an opportunity for indulgent self-reflection. We enjoy this time out for reflection, but the pleasure is also connected to recollecting that which we long for, where this reflective element can be even exhilarating or uplifting."

**Animal** · 04-27-2020, 10:27 PM

Who are Riso & Hudson, anyway?

More importantly - do they have the authority to own the 'Enneagram Institute,' grant others permission to practice enneagram, and teach the enneagram at all? Enneagram was not theirs - so who made it okay for them to give out certificates permitting others to practice?

I am going to make this into its own thread one day, but for now, I will address the surface of the problem. I need to do more research about the history of teachers and how this all started. But for now, I do have some bare minimum "common knowledge" insight into the history behind this.

Online, I've read endless accounts of the history of Enneagram. Most of them come from Christian communities and skeptics. My intent is not to prove or disprove its merit but rather to trace its origins. The overall consensus is that Gurdjieff first wrote about it but it was a more spiritual system, Ichazo learned it from him and introduced the aspect of 'personality types,' Ichazo taught a few students and those students went on to write books. Ichazo's student was Naranjo, who taught Maitri, Ochs and Almaas - but not R&H.

https://www.integrative9.com/enneagram/history/

Claudio Naranjo, a Chilean psychiatrist was exposed to the Enneagram through Ichazo and brought the Enneagram into the modern psychological tradition. Individuals such as Ochs, Almaas and Maitri studied with Naranjo, who still teaches the Enneagram to this day. Through Ochs, the Enneagram was introduced into numerous Christian communities in the United States where authors such as Wagner, Riso and Hudson were exposed to the teachings.

The enneagram was passed along to people like Riso & Hudson down the line, and Ichazo disowned Naranjo & the rest, saying they had distorted the teachings.

At this moment, it is unclear to me whether R&H was specifically the reason he denounced Naranjo, or to what degree he reacted to their teachings specifically - but it is known that he did not approve of the distorted way it was being taught. I intend to look into this further.

This is a quote from a blog, one of many that I have read on this topic, but I chose this one because it is short and to the point.

https://enneagramtestqueen.com/blogs...the-enneagram/

The more recent evolution of the Enneagram symbol is not as fuzzy. In the 1930s, Russian mystic and Spiritual Teacher George Gurdjieff introduced the Enneagram as a spiritual symbol. Using it to teach on the unfolding of creation, and referred to it as a eternal motion. He claimed to have been introduced to the Enneagram in the 1920s during a visit to a monastery in Afghanistan. But failed to explain its origin.

Bolivian-born Enneagram Teacher Oscar Ichazo is credited for coining the term "Enneagram of PersonalityClaudio Naranjo, a Chilean-born psychiatrist, first learned about the Enneagram from Ichazo in Chile.

He put a modern, psychological twist on the model. And developed and taught his own understanding of it in the United States in the early 1970s. Affec others, such as Jesuit priests, who adapted the Enneagram for use in Christianity.

Among those who studied with Naranjo were Ochs, Almaas and Maitri. And they still teach the Enneagram today. Ochs was also powerful in introducing the Enneagram into some Christian communities in the United States. Exposing its teaching to authors such as Wagner, Riso and Hudson. Ichazo eventually disowned Naranjo and other teachers as he felt they misinterpreted and misused the Enneagram.

Today, researchers focus on the psychological aspects of the Enneagram. Rather than the religious aspects, often comparing it with other models like the Myers-Briggs system.

Announcement

Problems with Riso & Hudson's Four Description

Problems with Riso & Hudson's Four Description

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment