The Enneagram is Awesome

[Azeroffs]

Every once in a while I switch interests between the enneagram and socionics, and something about the enneagram leaves me a lot more fulfilled. It just seems like things fall into place better with the enneagram. Maybe it's because it has a stronger relationship to behavior that it just seems less muddled, or maybe it's the lack of material on socionics. I always find myself coming back to socionics though. Something about socionics seems more core to how people work maybe even because it isn't as clear. It's probably all bullshit anyway. *shrug*

[Singu]

It's a bit too esoteric for me. And I think that it's too generalized to be of any serious use. I'm not sure what it is useful for, other than to say that: "Hey, look at me, I am this type!". Which is somewhat similar to Socionics but it's even more generalized.

[Aiss]

Enneagram isn't esoteric. It's merely surrounded by a lot of esoteric spam. Once you filter it, all that's left is a behavioural theory, which is can be far more useful in practice than socionics - by someone's habits and superficial traits you're able to guess their motivations, which allows you to predict quite accurately how they'll react and how to approach them. It's all about how coping mechanisms and behavioural patterns develop.

*If* there really is something to Feeling functions seeing who people are at core etc., as many people claim, Enneagram could be considered a sort of "F for dummies". But I'm not really convinced if it applies to it more so than to any other personality theory.

[KeroZen]

Do inter-type relations transpose to Enneagram or not at all?

[KeroZen]

Fascinating! Care to to elaborate a bit more?

[EyeSeeCold]

For me, I am a type 5. Some ES*Ps I know have been 7s. The Enneagram says when 7s are positively focused they become like 5s, however 5s themselves should be headed towards 8 which is more physical(Se). This makes sense as Se would be my suggestive function. So to some degree it correlates but not all the time as there are small differences that aren't covered with only 9 types.

I was into the Enneagram at the same time of MBTI, so, by now, I've pretty much lost interest. Though I do think it is still useful.

[Singu]

Enneagram isn't esoteric. It's merely surrounded by a lot of esoteric spam. Once you filter it, all that's left is a behavioural theory, which is can be far more useful in practice than socionics - by someone's habits and superficial traits you're able to guess their motivations, which allows you to predict quite accurately how they'll react and how to approach them. It's all about how coping mechanisms and behavioural patterns develop.

Well to be honest, I think that these sorts of things are already well-established, well-documented, and well-researched by clinical psychology, especially I think, the "humanistic" psychology. The only difference is that Enneagrams has "types", which you can use to apparently predict people's behavior. But I wouldn't recommend doing that, because then you'd be merely reacting to them. It's much easier to simple be yourself.

And if you really want to learn about these things... then read Freud, or post-Freud, or something. You'd be amazed at how much in-depth detailed analysis they go into. It makes Enneagrams look like a joke .

[xerx]

Reading the responses in this thread has been interesting. I've never found the Enneagram that useful, personally. Most of the type descriptions read like a mishmash of behaviors that come from the perspective of an individual viewer rather than a unified universal context like the information aspects in socionics. To that extent, it feels like I'm reading the idiosyncratic musings of a random observer than looking at an objective phenomenon.

Even my type's core motivation was something I've always known about myself as being rather obvious, not interesting enough to dwell on, and with major and nuanced differences from the way it's described. Plus lots of the (on-line and book) descriptions are just bad or totally misleading.

Socionics however, has provided me with a frighteningly deep and nuanced understanding of my own and especially others' in-built thought structures and potentiality, just from observing their behaviors and typical interactions with others. It seems more animate, more complete and more "real" than the enneagram.

imo

(Both are still interesting though)

[ashlesha]

*If* there really is something to Feeling functions seeing who people are at core etc., as many people claim, Enneagram could be considered a sort of "F for dummies".

would ethical types be better at typing in enneagram, then? i struggle at typing people with the enneagram. sometimes etypes just pop out at me, maybe with people who are less healthy, but i generally don't consider other peoples' etypes. socionics seems easier to me in large part because it can be broken down into these discrete chunks (like function, temperament, quadra, club, etc.) whereas with the enneagram it seems more like one big unified thing that needs to be uncovered - seeing someone's BASIC LIFE FOCUS, like it's kind of intimidating or something and seems weird for somebody to try to see in another person. (i wonder if this indicates an Ne and Ni emphasis, respectively, with the different systems?)

besides, i wouldn't really say ethical functions are about "seeing who people are at core," at least not without a whole lot of subjectivity. i would associate that more with Ni, maybe? and Fi would be more about "seeing how people are in relation to/compatibility with myself" (sort of) and i'm not sure about Fe. but i guess that would be a different thread.

anyway, i think the enneagram is interesting in terms of self-reflection, but unless you're very motivated and ready to radically change yourself i have trouble seeing the practical use. i guess if you regularly type other people it might be interesting - similarly to socionics - to just observe how the theory plays out for real.

[Bardia]

For some reason I've never been that interested in it. I think it may be due to the fact that I feel like it presents people in an overly negative way. It's like MBTI is way too positive of light, where even one's weaknesses are just over the top strengths, socionics is just right, and enneagram makes everyone out to be psychotic or obsessed over some issue. I can see how some of the enneagram applies to myself in others. I can see the 1 type problems. However, it doesn't really explain to me something I don't already know and it seems to overdramatize what I see as a little problem.

[The Exception]

I'm interested in enneagram, socionics, and MBTI and like seeing how all three theories interrelate. My interests kind of cycle back and forth between the three. I'll go through periods where one of these three theories is my predominant interests and then it will change to some other theory. Right now, I'm at the point where I'm trying to pursue my interest in all three of these theories. I'm probably scattering my energies too much because I don't feel like I'm all that focused on any of the three in spite of my interest.

[KeroZen]

It might not be esoteric but as Aiss said, from an external point of view it surely does look like it's surrounded by esoterism...

I took a test once but I didn't write down the result... Would be fun to see if ashton's predictions apply, but there's no reason they don't.

I see there's some notion of sub-types/refinement too... Did they settle on some multiple of 9 that could be compatible with say...a multiple of 16?

But you say some types don't have their place on the circle? What happens for them? They can't get any result?

This detail in particular makes me tick and I got the impression it's incomplete somehow.

[golden]

I took a test once but I didn't write down the result... Would be fun to see if ashton's predictions apply, but there's no reason they don't.

Well, I encourage you to take another E test or two and tell us the results.

[Aiss]

I see there's some notion of sub-types/refinement too... Did they settle on some multiple of 9 that could be compatible with say...a multiple of 16?

Any combination is possible. Enneagram is behavioural, based on coping mechanisms. Socionics is inborn, based on information metabolism. There's clearly a correlation, as some types are more likely to fall into some patterns than others, but no one-to-one conversion. Most of the attempts at artificially establishing the latter were either theoretical (like "gut triad types must be Sensing" - ridiculous, if only considering the amount of xII 9s), or based on exclusion (like "ESEs can't be 6s" - except they can.. though some combinations seem improbable). They fail.

Also, I think most Enneagram descriptions are detached from the basics of the system, or focusing too much on mental processes rather than motivations, bringing it closer to typologies based on Jung's theories at the cost of losing its original meaning (and usefulness).

[KeroZen]

Aiss: insightful, thanks.

Golden: yes I'll pass the test again when I find some time.

[Jarno]

Every once in a while I switch interests between the enneagram and socionics, and something about the enneagram leaves me a lot more fulfilled.

keep yourself together man. Enneagram is sort of a failed socionics.

[Aleksei]

I prefer using both (along with MBTI and any other peronality theory I can find) in tandem. It gives me a fuller picture than any single personality sorting system could alone

On the Enneagram and mysticism: The Enneagram is mystical in nature. The word Enneagram itself refers not to the system but to the wheel diagram it's housed in, which is called an enneagram and stems from mystical traditions. The Enneagram we study is not THE Enneagram, it is AN Enneagram: the Enneagram of Personality.

Although yes, esoteric bullshit aside it is great.

[Aleksei]

Any combination is possible. Enneagram is behavioural, based on coping mechanisms. Socionics is inborn, based on information metabolism. There's clearly a correlation, as some types are more likely to fall into some patterns than others, but no one-to-one conversion. Most of the attempts at artificially establishing the latter were either theoretical (like "gut triad types must be Sensing" - ridiculous, if only considering the amount of xII 9s), or based on exclusion (like "ESEs can't be 6s" - except they can.. though some combinations seem improbable). They fail.

Also, I think most Enneagram descriptions are detached from the basics of the system, or focusing too much on mental processes rather than motivations, bringing it closer to typologies based on Jung's theories at the cost of losing its original meaning (and usefulness).

Who said ESEs can't be 6? Gulenko's Si-subtype ESE description sounds like a Phobic 6w7...

[Exodus]

Reading the responses in this thread has been interesting. I've never found the Enneagram that useful, personally. Most of the type descriptions read like a mishmash of behaviors that come from the perspective of an individual viewer rather than a unified universal context like the information aspects in socionics. To that extent, it feels like I'm reading the idiosyncratic musings of a random observer than looking at an objective phenomenon.

...

Socionics however, has provided me with a frighteningly deep and nuanced understanding of my own and especially others' in-built thought structures and potentiality, just from observing their behaviors and typical interactions with others. It seems more animate, more complete and more "real" than the enneagram.

imo

(Both are still interesting though)

Same here. Different descriptions say different things about Enneatypes (or MBTI types). With socionics I find that the more complex theoretical structure helps to create a little more objectivity. However, that means it can take a long time to get a hold of all the different manifestations of the types and elements, especially if you don't have other people IRL to check your typings against. It took me a few years to see how truly comprehensive socionics is, so I'm sure you (Azeroffs) have many cool things left to discover about socionics. I'm still learning new stuff about socionics to this day.

[Galen]

Same here. Different descriptions say different things about Enneatypes (or MBTI types). With socionics I find that the more complex theoretical structure helps to create a little more objectivity. However, that means it can take a long time to get a hold of all the different manifestations of the types and elements, especially if you don't have other people IRL to check your typings against. It took me a few years to see how truly comprehensive socionics is, so I'm sure you (Azeroffs) have many cool things left to discover about socionics. I'm still learning new stuff about socionics to this day.

I've actually found that socionics has been historically less objective than enneagram. Socionics descriptions of the past make attempts to describe the actions that people do (which isn't even what socionics attempts to define), whereas enneagram has always been a way of describing the internal mindsets of people that cause such actions to be expressed. Both socionics and enneagram can be equally objective or subjective depending on who's doing the analyzing, but based on my observations enneagram seems less controversial due to its objectivity/consistency.

[Exodus]

I've actually found that socionics has been historically less objective than enneagram. Socionics descriptions of the past make attempts to describe the actions that people do (which isn't even what socionics attempts to define),

Descriptions of the past? What does that have to do with socionics? Socionics can definitely describe behavior -- using information elements -- but type is not the same as behavior. The meaning of the information elements is one of the deepest aspects of socionics and it usually explains why noobs (or crackpots) are so bad at typing people.

whereas enneagram has always been a way of describing the internal mindsets of people that cause such actions to be expressed. Both socionics and enneagram can be equally objective or subjective depending on who's doing the analyzing, but based on my observations enneagram seems less controversial due to its objectivity/consistency.

ok, maybe I just don't know enough about enneagram then. Everything you said applies to socionics too.

[KazeCraven]

I think the Enneagram takes an approach that says more about who we are, but (perhaps because of this) ends up being less accurate. Since it's based on internal motivations, the manifestations can vary widely due to life history, and the type descriptions can only say so much. Considering that it tends to diverge as more people look at it, I'd argue that there are some factors which were made to fit but really just correlate for one reason or another.

Also it definitely suffers from not differentiating by thinking styles. Some of the descriptions assume that people with a certain type of motivation will have a certain thinking style, which I'm inclined to disagree with beyond a moderate correlation (e.g. nonlinear vs linear thinking; not thinking over feeling which probably does play a role). That, and it seems more like a 'high level' theory which is ultimately derived from a combination of things such as temperament, preferences for information processing, and early wounding.

But overall, once you take level of health, instinctual stacking, and secondary motivations into account it gets pretty accurate. The problem is that making a description that combines all of those for each one gets a bit... expansive.

[Blaze]

enneagram theory draws me in initially but ultimately leaves me flat. it usually seems like a hodge podge of descriptions that lack theoretical grounding. on the surface it seems like it makes sense but as you explore, it lacks structure and applicability. socionics is a much more flexible, over arching theory.

someone said socionics takes a long time to learn and i would agree. i started coming here in 2005 and still find there are things to discover about socionics. it can be an incredible tool for understanding and healing even. it gives you a language that allows for easy application. i find you can talk about socionics with people without even mentioning the word or the theory.

correct typing seems to be the main problem though. if there were valid typing, then research could be done on families, marriage, work. until that time we are stuck with observation.

[KazeCraven]

someone said socionics takes a long time to learn and i would agree. i started coming here in 2005 and still find there are things to discover about socionics. it can be an incredible tool for understanding and healing even. it gives you a language that allows for easy application. i find you can talk about socionics with people without even mentioning the word or the theory.

All of the above could be said of the Enneagram.

[Galen]

Descriptions of the past? What does that have to do with socionics? Socionics can definitely describe behavior -- using information elements -- but type is not the same as behavior. The meaning of the information elements is one of the deepest aspects of socionics and it usually explains why noobs (or crackpots) are so bad at typing people.

What I mean by "descriptions of the past" is "descriptions written in the past about socionics that tend to be taken for granted." I'm very skeptical about using socionics as a means of defining actions, because behaviors that it describes tend to only come from stereotypes and don't allow for much variety within types. Those people who type based on behavior (things like shouting or foreshadowing) tend to be the biggest crackpots in the community from what I can tell.

ok, maybe I just don't know enough about enneagram then. Everything you said applies to socionics too.

And I agree, but again I'm speaking from what I've observed to be a more commonly held philosophy on the matter.

[Exodus]

What I mean by "descriptions of the past" is "descriptions written in the past about socionics that tend to be taken for granted."

In my opinion type descriptions are unnecessary for socionics. Personally I've never really used them. It's just better to describe functions and information elements instead.

[Galen]

In my opinion type descriptions are unnecessary for socionics. Personally I've never really used them. It's just better to describe functions and information elements instead.

I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is that a lot of people use type descriptions extensively in their typings of people.