Enneagram Opinion Thread
I just started reading into the Enneagram, mostly at www.enneagraminstitute.com. I'm curious on your opinions or critiques of the whole system itself. There seems to be a lot of overlap between type descriptions and I don't like it as much as Socionics because it lacks something like the foundation of IM. But I do like their different levels of functioning for self-development. I think Socionics could benefit from something like that. Thoughts?
Last edited by bibliophile8; 02-02-2008 at 06:03 PM. Reason: superfluous
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
.... what you find online in terms of the ennagram is strange. Like this forum, and similar minds (I never really posted there, just looking at it......), there are a lot of people on internet forums that will cloud things and confuse things.
My best advice is go to your library and find books on it. If you are lucky enough to be a university student, look through worldcat or some other interlibrary loan or something like that. Find a bunch of books, from different authors, so you can get different perspectives on what they are really talking about.
The best books I've seen are by Don Riso, and that cleared up a lot of things for me. Much more so than anything online or talking about things with people here online.
I believe Expat says something like like the Enneagram is of course an "incomplete" system, but it has its uses, it offers its own insights (correct me if I'm wrong). I am leaning now more towards what he said. I do think the layers of development are useful, and it also (particularly for me) helps me understand why and how people are acting in times of great stress, or regression. It adds a different demension that socionics doesn't address.
But definitely, defintely go to the books, if you are interested in developing anything more than a superficial knowledge about enneagram.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
they have a different system, more centered to the develpment of the personality than the type itself. That's why they have all that shitty list about mood or level or whatever they call it. It's useful, interesting (like astrology) to know, to understand, but i don't know if it is indeed a practical tool to work with.
No. You can be LSI-3, though LSI is more prototypical of 8 and 1.
But you may think of types 8 and 1 as well.
Not understanding type variants can lead to misdescriptions, and even to mistyping ; for example, SEI's are described mostly as E9, but not much as E4. They are extremes of adaptiveness and non-adaptiveness (are SEI's accomodating or hostile ?). Besides, a LIE-5 may type himself LII or ILI, or a ESI-8 may type himself LSE.
In Wikisocion's descriptions, you can see "possible social roles" of types. These may reflect physiological variants.
http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...gical_Extratim
Not understanding such variants may even lead to creation of bogus subtype theories. Some socionists still persist by saying "subtypes don't exist".
Levels of functioning are actually a linear model that tries to describe classical stages of development for Etypes. You may replace them by Morler's Emotional Maturity Levels or Spiral Dynamics Levels as well.
I tried to describe the role of Physiological (Enneagram) variants in IM myself. For example, Serotonin has a role in input, Norepinephin has a role in processing, and Dopamin has a role in output.
I guess I'm not sure, but I'm leaning to 3 right now. I've never really identified with the stereotypical cop LSI. I'm not very vocal about my dogma, sometimes I'm not sure what my dogma is. But, I took that part about my type out of my original post cause I thought it would be better if I (we) just focused on one thing at a time.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
So you think that an individual gradually moves up the stages through life, independent of other factors? Do you think this may correspond to developing socionic ego functions?
Do you know where I can find out more about Morler and Spiral Dynamics?
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
Actually, the website I listed is maintained by Don Riso and I have reserved one of his books from the library. Thanks.
I'm not sure Enneagram is incomplete. It doesn't explain a person completely, but neither does socionics or anything else. Are you saying it leaves too much undefined or variable? Cause I could see that.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
If you're not sure of what your dogma is, you may be an LSE.
I don't know, for the moment the relationship between such levels and such functions are unclear.
Morler : http://lspearmanii.multiply.com/journal/item/52 ; http://www.morler.com/AudioCD_Charts_web.pdf
Spiral Dynamics : http://www.spiraldynamics.org/ ; http://www.clarewgraves.com/
I dislike the elitism of this forum concerning all manner of personality theories. While I do think MBTT is flawed in quite a few ways, when the Enneagram gets shit for lacking something, there's a problem. What people need to understand is that the goal of the Enneagram is something completely different to socionics. While socionics aims to explain the diversity of relationships, the Enneagram is a self-development tool. Both have their practical value; if you're well versed in socionics, chances are you'll be able, for example, to spot where marriages are going right or wrong, and why conflict arises out of a group of people, if it does. If you understand the Enneagram, I think you'll be a much healthier person all round; spiritually, mentally, and perhaps even physically. They're both interesting concepts, and I think they should both get the credit they deserve. That's why on MBTI Central, I aim to give socionics its due, and why here, I promote the Enneagram as something worth studying. The more people understand, the better coverage these tools get.
yuuuuuup.
agreed!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
????
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
It strikes me as being something I've been dealing with extensively as an LSE
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
maybe I am LSE... damn, how hard it does it have to be just to find your type with some certainty and not have it change on you in a month... ughIt strikes me as being something I've been dealing with extensively as an LSE
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
I suggest you just calm down and read on information elements.
Wow, thanks for the great advice.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
Sorry, I'm just a little frustrated and worn out of trying to figure out my type. Starting to wonder if its worth the time. But, really though, was that necessary?
/thread derailing
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
bibliophile8, I'm under the impression that Rationals make judgements and stick to them i.e. when going about typing themselves, they will gather all the necessary facts before doing so, and then come to a firm conclusion which technically won't change unless some new evidence comes in. A good example of this is UDP. While I'm still sceptical about his being an LSE, I think he's almost certainly a Rational. He has changed his type once in his time here, which clearly shows that he's thought things through. I don't really see much evidence in your case, however. Irrationality is more likely because of this.
Phaedrus has no logic here. Being unaware of one's dogma has nothing to do with one's being an LSE, as he himself has proved.
Why did you mention Phaedrus? UDP made the comment.
I think it has more to do with the possibility of Te as leading function. When someone suggests a type for me, my first instinct is rejection. But then I think about what they are saying and if I can prove them wrong. Usually, I don't think I can from my knowledge of Socionics, so then I'm like "well maybe you have a point" and I go back and do more reading to see if I can see myself as that type. I have only changed my type once, until now. And usually its because I read something that really seemed out of whack with what I was thinking or someone told me specifically that I may be this or this type and it was something I had not thought of before. (It may be worth noting here that phrasing things differently makes me think about them differently.) But, maybe you're right, maybe I am an irrational. I thought irrationals disliked repetition in their perceptions in which case I've read Wikisocion articles who knows how many times. If I was an irrational, which would you suggest?
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
I think he was referring to what UDP quoted, which still was not Phaedrus but machintruc
oh, right. my bad.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
It's a spiritual system, a set of ethics; prescriptive.
Such as?
[Stormy] [LII]
I incorrectly mentioned Phaedrus. I have scouring him on the brain, haha.
I don't know. I need to study you more. One thing: I don't understand what you mean by "I thought irrationals disliked repetition in their perceptions". Please explain.I think it has more to do with the possibility of Te as leading function. When someone suggests a type for me, my first instinct is rejection. But then I think about what they are saying and if I can prove them wrong. Usually, I don't think I can from my knowledge of Socionics, so then I'm like "well maybe you have a point" and I go back and do more reading to see if I can see myself as that type. I have only changed my type once, until now. And usually its because I read something that really seemed out of whack with what I was thinking or someone told me specifically that I may be this or this type and it was something I had not thought of before. (It may be worth noting here that phrasing things differently makes me think about them differently.) But, maybe you're right, maybe I am an irrational. I thought irrationals disliked repetition in their perceptions in which case I've read Wikisocion articles who knows how many times. If I was an irrational, which would you suggest?
Did you read my post, post #9?
Irrationals like to keep their perceptions moving not have things being "boring" in some sense, and I thought part of that was not seeing a need to repeat past experiences and that this was somehow related to them not having clearly defined constant interests. It's not entirely making sense to me now, to be honest, I just remembered reading it somewhere.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
I'm not sure how its a system of ethics, that seems to be taking it a bit far.
What I meant was that its hard to just type someone on traits because the types can act a lot like each other. Like a 1 and a preservational 3. Both are driven to achieve internal ideas of good, but for very different reasons (wanting to be perfect and wanting to be successful or liked). So its hard to type someone as either based solely on actions. I noticed other similarities between other types as well.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
It's basically prescribing what the most beneficial course of action is for a person in a variety of psychological states.
[Stormy] [LII]
There's a Reinin Dichotomy called Constructivism/Emotivism which might be what you're thinking of - http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t..._and_emotivist - specifically, the bit about constructivists preferring the same sensations/experiences and emotivists preferring new sensations/experiences.
ILI (Indescribable Lovemaking Inc.)
5w4 so/sx
"IP temperament! Because today's concerns are tomorrow's indifferences!"
Lord Fnorgle's Domain - A slowly growing collection of music, poetry and literature.
Stickam music performances
"Machintruc" is French for "Phaedrus". Hence the confusion.
Anyway, I haven't read much about the Ennegram, but I'd like to because from what people have said here use of one appears to help people understand the other - like maybe they work well together.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I'd think so, I like what Ezra mentioned so maybe I'll take a look.
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
Yeah I was thinking partially of that, but there was also some different reasoning. I think I was considering why irrationals don't have clearly defined interests and I think part of the reason is because it requires them to experience the same things in the same ways with changes few and far between. So they don't like to repeat perceptions or at least hold constant ones, but now it seems that this is mostly dependent on their paradigm rather than on the actual experience. So maybe I'm just wrong.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
Okay. Well, you were speaking in present tense, so I assumed your view hadn't changed.
Why not? I think it describes me a hell of a lot better than socionics does.I don't think the Enneagram will describe everyone well, but I don't actually expect it to.
That makes it sound like there's no other alternative to socionics.What I was trying to say is that despite it not being "like" socionics, I still think it has value.
Right. What's the difference, then, if any, between a static SLE view and being Irrational?
I don't understand your question. What do you mean by an 'SLE view'? An SLE is a static irrational.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
truthfully i haven't investigated the enneagram enough to make sound judgments about it.
I know. But you said SLEs, who are Irrationals, get bored with the same perceptions everyday, so they try to change them. But Statics have the same perceptions everyday, and are content with that; that's the definition of Static. Dynamics think 'everything moves, all the time; nothing is ever the same'. Statics think opposite.
Likewise, the same can be said about one's socionics type.
Fair enough.If you take it in context, I have clearly not said that. I just don't expect the same things of the enneagram that I do of socionics, and surely that is fair given that they are describing somewhat different things anyway?
Maybe SLEs still perceive the objects as static but they get their perceptions moving by changing their Ti concepts. This goes back to what I said about how it may be more about their paradigm than the content itself. The creative use of their auxiliary function is the paradigm and they are changing the relationships between objects. Perhaps they change the objects themselves other times.
I think what Salawa said has some merit as well.
type #33
but maybe LSE, and maybe E3w4(p)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote