yo I love pseudo science as much as you guys so here I am

[wcp]

Hello,

My name is Waverly I'm a 19 yr old female from Canada
I'm a 4w3 / sx/sp (life's tough) / INTP
I don't really grasp socionics yet but i'll work on that lmao

I'm a psychology major so I first started really getting interested in myers briggs and then I stumbled upon ennagrams and it blew my mind away. It's accurate to the point it scares me. I already ordered a book online after researching and I'm clearly in too deep because I am joining this forum.

so what's up? I'm always down to learn about other types and really down for just growing and learning about this great phenomena :halo:

[Sol]

Socionics is not a science, it's hypothesis as has no objective proof. It's not pseudo-science too, as has no disproof.

I you want to be typed, I recommend to create a video.

[Reficulris]

Hello,

My name is Waverly I'm a 19 yr old female from Canada
I'm a 4w3 / sx/sp (life's tough) / INTP
I don't really grasp socionics yet but i'll work on that lmao

I'm a psychology major so I first started really getting interested in myers briggs and then I stumbled upon ennagrams and it blew my mind away. It's accurate to the point it scares me. I already ordered a book online after researching and I'm clearly in too deep because I am joining this forum.

so what's up? I'm always down to learn about other types and really down for just growing and learning about this great phenomena

Social Science is gonna explain to you why descriptive psychology is not scientifically being practised right now. MBTI is not scientifically supported and neither is socionics yet. Enneagram is the least "scientific" of all these systems. It derives from occultism (google enneagram and md blavatski) and solely works through forrer effect. (mbti and socionics also work forrer in the hand, but at least seem to have something else going for them).

If you disaggree with the statements above you should talk to Jack Oliver Aaron, another quack who believes psychology is gonna "help" him with socionics and the other way around.

the best use of this forum is entertainment, self exploration and demonstration of cognitive biasses and heuristics. The best message of socionics is "people think different", and the endless typewars here are a great example of it (since everyone reads socionics as they need it to defend their own mental structures (ego)).

Welcome and have fun, don't let my cynicism scare you away more than the fanatical believers

Not to say socionics isn't fun or useful, just that it's not science yet and might not get there in our lifetimes. Cognition needs good neuroscience or great big data to be explained by socionics in a way that's replicable and significant.



edit: Actually the BEST use of all these systems is becoming a great cold reader

[anndelise]

Social Science is gonna explain to you why descriptive psychology is not scientifically being practised right now. MBTI is not scientifically supported and neither is socionics yet. Enneagram is the least "scientific" of all these systems. It derives from occultism (google enneagram and md blavatski) and solely works through forrer effect. (mbti and socionics also work forrer in the hand, but at least seem to have something else going for them).

Actually, the enneagram is the most likely to be the most scientifically sound of the three you listed...with some modifications.

Jaak Panksepp has mapped 7 emotional systems in the brain, which all mammals share, and other types of animals share some of them. (Note: Panksepp is in no way related to nor even concerned with the enneagram nor other typing systems! His work is pure science.)

The 4 "positive" ones are:
Seeking (pushes us to interact with our environment, which leads to us making associations and learning; when overactivated you get psychological problems like mania, psychosis, schizoprenia; when underactivated you get problems like depression)
Lust
Care (prompts the bonding of parent to infant; bonding with others (that loving feeling) caregiving activities, etc)
Play (the poking and prodding we do that teaches us rules of social interactions. May present as rough-and-tumble-play, teasing, verbal sparring, etc.)

The 3 "aversive" emotional systems he's mapped so far are:
rage/anger (commonly occurs when we suddenly are faced with an obstacle/conflict)
fear (commonly occurs when we are faced with uncertainty and insecurity)
seperation distress/panic (when caregiver and infant are seperated they cry out and desperately seek each other to reconnect; also part of things like jealousy, codependency, etc)

Enneagram can be easily mapped to the three aversive emotional systems, though enneagram might need some changes in some of the descriptions. Enneagram being about fixations leads to
Gut triad = Fixations about obstacles we face, competitions, and the goals/desires of others when in conflict with our own goals/desires
Head triad = Fixations about uncertainty and security
Heart triad = Fixations about losing our connections with others, what others think about us that might cause them to abandon us, etc

Then you break those three groups of fixations up into fight, flight, freeze, and appease stress reactions and you get 9-12 types. Again, though, enneagram would need to reword some of its descriptions to more accurately reflect the science.

For example, gut triad + stress reactions of fight, flight, appease:
Rage/Gut + fight = e8, a willingness/eagerness to overcome obstacles, to compete with others, and to prominantly push one's own goals/desires
Rage/Gut + flight = e1, if have the perfect path, the right attitude, and do everything the right way, then one can avoid most obstacles/conflicts, and when faced with conflicts then 'right wins over might'
Rage/Gut + appease = e9, to get past the obstacles one might appease its requirements/requests, or give the other party some or all of what they want and that might let you be able to get what you want

[Reficulris]

Actually, the enneagram is the most likely to be the most scientifically sound of the three you listed...with some modifications.

Jaak Panksepp has mapped 7 emotional systems in the brain, which all mammals share, and other types of animals share some of them. (Note: Panksepp is in no way related to nor even concerned with the enneagram nor other typing systems! His work is pure science.)

The 4 "positive" ones are:
Seeking (pushes us to interact with our environment, which leads to us making associations and learning; when overactivated you get psychological problems like mania, psychosis, schizoprenia; when underactivated you get problems like depression)
Lust
Care (prompts the bonding of parent to infant; bonding with others (that loving feeling) caregiving activities, etc)
Play (the poking and prodding we do that teaches us rules of social interactions. May present as rough-and-tumble-play, teasing, verbal sparring, etc.)

The 3 "aversive" emotional systems he's mapped so far are:
rage/anger (commonly occurs when we suddenly are faced with an obstacle/conflict)
fear (commonly occurs when we are faced with uncertainty and insecurity)
seperation distress/panic (when caregiver and infant are seperated they cry out and desperately seek each other to reconnect; also part of things like jealousy, codependency, etc)

Enneagram can be easily mapped to the three aversive emotional systems, though enneagram might need some changes in some of the descriptions. Enneagram being about fixations leads to
Gut triad = Fixations about obstacles we face, competitions, and the goals/desires of others when in conflict with our own goals/desires
Head triad = Fixations about uncertainty and security
Heart triad = Fixations about losing our connections with others, what others think about us that might cause them to abandon us, etc

Then you break those three groups of fixations up into fight, flight, freeze, and appease stress reactions and you get 9-12 types. Again, though, enneagram would need to reword some of its descriptions to more accurately reflect the science.

For example, gut triad + stress reactions of fight, flight, appease:
Rage/Gut + fight = e8, a willingness/eagerness to overcome obstacles, to compete with others, and to prominantly push one's own goals/desires
Rage/Gut + flight = e1, if have the perfect path, the right attitude, and do everything the right way, then one can avoid most obstacles/conflicts, and when faced with conflicts then 'right wins over might'
Rage/Gut + appease = e9, to get past the obstacles one might appease its requirements/requests, or give the other party some or all of what they want and that might let you be able to get what you want

The idea that those urges exist go back super far. It's not the same as being scientifically proven.
Enneagram assumes that we're fixated on these urges which i'm quite certain is not the idea in modern neuroscience. Brain plasticity etc explains something here, but would not go with fixed types or main fixations, it would be possible to be fixated on anger lust care play rage fear etc...

The problem is not that you can't link enneagram to science, you can, and you'll always find correlations and similarities.
The problem is that as a system, it's based on believe (people are flawed in 1 of 9 ways or a combination of 3 out of 9 etc) rather than descriptive, repeatable experiment.

It's not scientific because it has more similarities with science, it has to be correlated to become usefull, and the strong focus on forrer (descriptions) and self reports (bad scientific procedure) makes it inherently non-scientific.

It is very possible that once neuroscience gets good enough it will describe humans in very similar fashion as enneagram and or mbti or socionics. It's just not that same as those systems being valid yet.

[ashlesha]

@Reficulris is there any particular reason that enneagram would depend on forer effect more than any other typology system, or is that just your opinion?

[ashlesha]

oh and welcome to the forum, waverly

[anndelise]

The idea that those urges exist go back super far. It's not the same as being scientifically proven.
Enneagram assumes that we're fixated on these urges which i'm quite certain is not the idea in modern neuroscience. Brain plasticity etc explains something here, but would not go with fixed types or main fixations, it would be possible to be fixated on anger lust care play rage fear etc...

The problem is not that you can't link enneagram to science, you can, and you'll always find correlations and similarities.
The problem is that as a system, it's based on believe (people are flawed in 1 of 9 ways or a combination of 3 out of 9 etc) rather than descriptive, repeatable experiment.

It's not scientific because it has more similarities with science, it has to be correlated to become usefull, and the strong focus on forrer (descriptions) and self reports (bad scientific procedure) makes it inherently non-scientific.

It is very possible that once neuroscience gets good enough it will describe humans in very similar fashion as enneagram and or mbti or socionics. It's just not that same as those systems being valid yet.

As far as typing people, i agree that it's inherently non-scientific beyond the fact that humans inherently group people and information. (Grouping and nesting information/other is fundamental to our ability to think, plan, and communicate.) Of course, that doesn't mean that those groups actually exist beyond conceptually, nor that members of a group would maintain strict adherence to a particular grouping.

As for those 7 urges being scientifically proven or not, look up Jaak Panksepp's work. His work is definitely scientifically proven.

As an aside, imo, knowing his work would also greatly help you with cold reading and that other stuff you've been into.

[Reficulris]

@Reficulris is there any particular reason that enneagram would depend on forer effect more than any other typology system, or is that just your opinion?

There is no particular reason beside the fact that everyone will recognise something in the descriptions of enneagram. I'd say that the amount of correlation between different enneagram descriptions is very limited (at least between the dutch ones and the varied english ones i've seen). Socionics at least has a system about cognition, even though it's not easily tested, operationalised or agreed upon... MBTI is close to enneagram in being forrer based, or at least the self-practised version on the internet is. I haven't done a MBTI professional test, so can't say if it's better.

I base, what is definitely just my opinion, on the fact that there's little "system" behind enneagram besides accurate descriptions of things that we recognise as people. There's not a strong base for saying "people are fixated and that defines their personality in a strong way".

Bear in mind that I hate the enneagram mostly because i've seen so many baaaad baaad baaad con artists who use it to scam low identity people out of hard earned money. Also my experiences with people who are into the occultism behind it (theosophy) is very very negative, they are, scary and morally depraved excuses of human beings. So my opinion is biassed, not everyone who uses ennagram is a scam artist, and not every scam artist is enneagram user, and not everything you can do with enneagram is bad. But as I system and more as a societal phenomena I dislike and disapprove of it. This makes me less likely to see it as accurately depicting human behaviour.

As far as typing people, i agree that it's inherently non-scientific beyond the fact that humans inherently group people and information. (Grouping and nesting information/other is fundamental to our ability to think, plan, and communicate.) Of course, that doesn't mean that those groups actually exist beyond conceptually, nor that members of a group would maintain strict adherence to a particular grouping.

As for those 7 urges being scientifically proven or not, look up Jaak Panksepp's work. His work is definitely scientifically proven.

As an aside, imo, knowing his work would also greatly help you with cold reading and that other stuff you've been into.

I agree with those urges being scientifically proven. What I was trying to illustrate is that even though those urges where widely accepted beforehand, they were not scientifically proven until they were.

That is, even if enneagram perfectly overlapses with those urges (which it doesn't, it is merely similar) it doesn't make the system scientifically valid a priori. Ad post it would only be valid if the system identifies the same urges as a brainscan would. That is, if it reaches correlation between observed and typed types and brain development/activity.

And yes, i'm going to google and see what he writes, it seems interesting, esp if he knows when those things go together/statistically when they apply most. Telling people what their secret urges and fears are is always fun (and yes, also what I use enneagram for.. i'm not better then the aforementioned scams).

[Reficulris]

Hello,

My name is Waverly I'm a 19 yr old female from Canada
I'm a 4w3 / sx/sp (life's tough) / INTP
I don't really grasp socionics yet but i'll work on that lmao

I'm a psychology major so I first started really getting interested in myers briggs and then I stumbled upon ennagrams and it blew my mind away. It's accurate to the point it scares me. I already ordered a book online after researching and I'm clearly in too deep because I am joining this forum.

so what's up? I'm always down to learn about other types and really down for just growing and learning about this great phenomena

Sorry for highjacking your thread! If you want i can derail it out of it so you can continue introducing yourself and meeting people ;-) ((although you'll have to get used to thread derailment at some point if you want to survive here )