Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: A Simpler, More Logical Model of the Enneagram?

  1. #1
    Board philosopher or bored philosopher? jason_m's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    19 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)

    Default A Simpler, More Logical Model of the Enneagram?

    I really think that the Enneagram should get rid of the notion of wings and integration/disintegration. Here is what I propose:

    Ideally, an Enneagram test should not have you choose one type over another, but rather have you check off all the statements that apply to you (for every type). This way, you can see all types that are relevant.

    In theory, the type for which you get the highest score would be your integral type. This is your main type.

    All types for which you score above a certain percentage (e.g, 50&#37 (but are not your main type) are your auxiliary types. The patterns of these types can be found in your behaviour, but none serve as your core motivation.

    Finally, the types that are not really evident in your behaviour are your shadow types.

    Here is why I think this is a better model:

    1) People can behave in different ways in different situations, so often, there is often more than one core type evident in one's personality.

    2) Test results indicate that many people get higher scores for types other than their wing. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to refer to someone as a 5w4 when, for example, there are far more Type Nine aspects to their personality than Type Four, as the Nine traits would have more influence on their personality and are nowhere to be found in the categorization of their type.

    3) There is no evidence to believe that, for example, Fives integrate to Type Eight when healthy. In fact, if the Eight is naturally opposed to a Five's basic personality, then the individual would probably never integrate to Eight. However, there is no reason to believe that such an individual could not still be healthy.

    In conclusion, I think that the Enneagram is a good model. I can clearly see the Enneagram types of a lot of people, and I can't say that for a lot of other systems. Also, almost every kind of motivation I can think of could theoretically fit within the motivations of one of the nine types. That means that it's a complete system. Finally, the Enneagram uses levels of health for each type, and this adds another dimension to a person's personality that should be adopted by other systems. However, the wing and integration/disintegration theories are not logical, and so I think that they should be replaced with what I propose.

    Last edited by jason_m; 09-17-2008 at 09:36 AM.

  2. #2
    Let's fly now Gilly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    3w4 sx/so
    91 Post(s)
    0 Thread(s)


    I dunno, the more I think about it and observe, the less "necesary" it seems to me that people are driven by one "core" motivation, and more that their motivations are prioritized; nobody does everything in life for one reason, and trying to construe something in that light is completely disingenuous as best. I think that E-types denote a set of motivations that are very prevalent in the human archetype, and that they should be looked at, instead of using all of these hyper-clarifying bullshit aspects that don't have anything to do with the actual motivation, from the perspective of being relative psychological needs produced by the dissonances of living in a structured society that does not take the full extent of human nature into account in its dealings.
    But, for a certainty, back then,
    We loved so many, yet hated so much,
    We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...

    Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
    Whilst our laughter echoed,
    Under cerulean skies...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts