I think JRiddy's identification with type 3 is much more easily explained by a combination of the 6 wing and social variant than by some radical alteration in interpretation of the enneagram.
I think JRiddy's identification with type 3 is much more easily explained by a combination of the 6 wing and social variant than by some radical alteration in interpretation of the enneagram.
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...
Isha is always right ^_^
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...
Very well put.Originally Posted by octopuslove
Enneagram seems to exclusively determine behavior. Any socionics type can be any enneagram type, so that adds another subtype basically. An enneagram type can tell you a lot about how someone will be behavior wise. Look at it this way, socionics is the tool, enneagram is how the tool is used. I think the enneagram is a perfectly fine system.
This is a nice and simple enneagram site- www.9types.com
SEE-Fi 9w8 sx/sp
Enneagram is more in depth and well study than Socionics. Socionics is more interesting because of inter-type relationship. I am a firm believer of putting Enneagram and Socionic together. And together, I think you will find the "right dual-right person".
(D)IEE~FI-(C)SLE~Ni E-5w4(Sp/Sx)/7w8(So/Sp)/9w1(sp/sx)
ennegram is more easily observable and speaks about a mostly different realm of psychology than socionics
Socionics is about perception of information and relationships.
Enneagram is about fixations. Fears that you dwell on and thrust outwards trying to compensate for them.
The end is nigh
Enneagram is poor at descibing anything. It's fundamentally inaccurate model of describing someones psyche. In some areas research in enneagram has touched areas that has been overlooked in socionics. There's a clear tendency that many of the people who use lot of enneagram in their typings are poor at getting peoples socionics types right.
This is addressed in socionics also.
Only 1/4 of socionics functions describe persons ego.Socionics describes our conscious only. The enneagram gives us a method to work with our unconscious.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
Dualization, dimensionalilty of functions etc. There's lot of articles written about this subject.
If you think that way, then explain how the insecurities, blockades, needs, valuing and devaluing concerning the non-ego functions are formed, if they are all within the ego. If it's all within the ego, why would one need to form defence mechanisms to protect themselves from these insecurities? Everything you can consciously think within your ego, you can consciously think and enact differently. In Freud's theory not even entire ego is conscious.As I see it, the conscious mind uses all 8 functions. Only because two are called "ego"-functions, doesn't mean we have only those functions in our Ego, we have the whole of model A there, we're just not using all functions as much. I am aware that some try to fit the functions into ego, super-ego, id, super-id as an analog to Freud, but imo, this is very forced and has nothing to do with the real unconscious. I think it's pure bullshit. And that was straight from my conscious.
Last edited by Warlord; 06-08-2009 at 11:16 AM.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
Socionics is much more about relationships. However, if you are very unstable yourself no relationship will be well- everything will be completely your own fault, so it's pointless to process with people. So therefore, enneagram is more important. You can't have a relationship with anybody on the planet unless you are primarily taking care of yourself, which is what enneagram advocates.This is addressed in socionics also.
Therefore, I find enneagram a lot more useful than socionics.
If you are well within yourself, at least adequately- you will attract people (both friends and lovers) to start a relationship with. However, if you aren't in a good frame of mind, people will instinctively avoid you for their own self-protection.
People like it because it's less technical and more of a mystical archetype system. It can sort of be used to give a vague indication of personality, but it's not as clear or confining as a Socionics type. It's also much easier to learn in the first place if you're not so analytical.
In fact, I would say that the systems lie on a spectrum:
Enneagram ---------- MBTI ---------- Socionics
Mystical ----------------------------- Practical
Emotional-----------------------------Analytical
Holistic ------------------------------ Precise
Archetypal ---------------------------Systematized
Vague -------------------------------Specific
Basically, Enneagram is Right-brained, Socionics is Left-brained, and MBTI is somewhere in between.
That's my take on it.
Exactly my thoughts.
Yes nice one.
Probably the most important difference is that Socionics explanations can be retraced to underlying cognitive functions, while enneagram sticks only to the surface so to say. This difference is a fundamental part of dividing 'a theoretical model' and 'just a collection of observations'.
Yeah, I agree.
Last edited by Warlord; 06-08-2009 at 12:14 PM.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
You are taking this from point of view what's prominent and what is often discussed and what is within what you know about socionics. It's not all there is about socionics, or all that there can be. It's just easier to find that type of information from the material avaible about enneagram.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
I don't see any of this sorry.In fact, I would say that the systems lie on a spectrum:
Enneagram ---------- MBTI ---------- Socionics
Mystical ----------------------------- Practical
Emotional-----------------------------Analytical
Holistic ------------------------------ Precise
Archetypal ---------------------------Systematized
Vague -------------------------------Specific
It's all vague and generalized clap-trap.
But getting detailed, specific information from people online is a safety risk. People only see and know what you show them, what is observable evidence. Both theories are nosy busybodies who try to pry where they don't belong. Thinking that we can internally pry into something without actual substance. That is impossible, nobody is a mind reader- they just think they are.
Also 'practical' vs 'mystical' is a useless dichotomy, because what does that even mean?
(I don't mean to be all super challenging and difficult, but please just listen to what I'm saying.)
enneagram is like viagra and enzyte all in one
The premise in the above comparison is that you accept all three systems as valid.
If you see them as vague, general, and insubstantial... then that's all they are. I was trying to describe how they look to the people who believe in them, not what they look like to people who don't.
That being said... sometimes I do think it's all made up, subjective, and doesn't work the way it should. That is a valid perspective. But if you have that perspective, you shouldn't care how the systems are defined, because you shouldn't use them.
I use them if I can also see how they work in objective, physical reality. So actually you're wrong. I'm trying to deplete as many 'perspectives' as possible, because all perceptions are true and valid because they all make up the whole. But as soon as something doesn't quite smell right I say 'wait a minute here' because it's like Pure Ego/The First Evil talking to you, there is no substance to reflect the truth of their voice and the ideals they're trying to say. It's just a voice. There's no hand or heart or spirit, just mind.But if you have that perspective, you shouldn't care how the systems are defined, because you shouldn't use them.
I personally feel like an idiot if I go out on a hunch or talk about people I don't REALLY know that well and try to apply this stuff to it. And my inner circle is unfortunately small. So yeah. I just think this whole thing is telling me that I need to live more life and have more real experience under my belt, despite my high intelligence.
If a person doesn't see how enneagram is non-science and socionics is science, it says something about that person.
Enneagram is the same sort of typology as for example dividing people into 'happy', 'sad' and 'angry'. Just a collection of observations without explaning the underlying reasons.
But socionics gets mixed up with a lot of different typologies, like the Oldham styles etc. Never understood that either.
I agree athenian. It is vague. Too vague.
Neither Socionics or enneagram are science in any way, shape, or form.
Enneagram does not type people based on "happy" and "sad".
More like, "identity searching" "fear of lack of control" "Fear of intrusion" etc.
Those things are pretty legit and major aspects of psyche, and are also much more easily observable.
As of now Enneagram trumps socionics, sorry.
The end is nigh
I'm curious to your definition of (social) science.
Socionics has little in the way of empirical verification, excepting the folk variety.
There has been little connection to actual biological processes.
Also, social sciences are considered the end of the spectrum in terms of reliable/exacting fields of study and Socionics is at the fringe of social sciences.
One day it might have scientific verification with connections to neuro-science and experimentation, but I have not encountered any so far.
Supposedly the Russians have performed such studies, however I cannot assume validity by hear-say alone.
dictionary.com:
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
I think the term "proto-science" applies to both typologies.
The end is nigh
But would you expect that enneagram will produce a similar scientific verification?
i have not encountered enneagram material like that, but i do believe the fixation concept is a valid one.
Yes I think enneagram could one day be verified.
The end is nigh
I think we would just waste more of our time with that. Maybe in some other circumstances. What I mean is that your thoughts wouldn't be uninteresting, but the outcome of what would happen, if you did that, would be waste of time now.
It has already been explained by socionics. It's not my logic. They aren't exactly the same as how Freud defines them, but Freuds speculations probably weren't even correct in the first place.However, I just wanted to say that your logic is flawed. Whatever made you assume that conscious + unconscious = model A??
Google Translate
Google Translate
Google Translate
Conscious part of the mind ~ Jung's typology.In my opinion EGO (also the unconscious parts) = model A. You are strong at Ni, Ne, Ti, Te in your Ego. You are weak at the other functions. Because you are weak at Fe, you might get Ego insecurities when it comes to that function. But why would that mean that you necessarily are unconsciously very strong at Fe, and even stronger at Fe than Ni?
You can consciously address your super-ego functions. However you can't fully address the id-functions. For example in case Se-DS, you don't know what's stopping you from doing something like a Se-ego would do. You simply can't bring it in your conscious mind and process it, and then just act accordingly. If it was in your ego, it would be just as easy as bying pasta instead of potatoes, then it would be just matter of what you decide. If you can't verbalize what the problem is, it's not in your conscious mind.
You just seem to connect the unconcious part of mind, with some mystic grandiose thing. It's not. Conscious mind is just what you consciously think. If we speak of archetypes, Jung's Self-archetype = what's explained by Model A.The unconscious has, ime, functions in a way too, but not only your weak and unvalued functions. It contains all functions, just like your Ego. Like your Ego is a (mostly) conscious archetype, you have more, probably even bigger unconscious archetypes, and they can all have "different" types.
Spritual side is thousands years old bullshit, with no relevance to reality. It's nothing more than filling factual holes with fantasy, although entertaining and a position where I have began too, but more I have learned and the better my understanding has become, the more obvious my conclusion has come.In addition there is the more spiritual side, and ime, it's not typeable, or rather, it contains all types.
Last edited by Warlord; 06-08-2009 at 07:44 PM.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
Is there a type or a person in the world, that letting go of envy wouldn't help?
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
So that's just falling for Barnum effect. These basic advises are helpful for one enneagram type, because they would be helpful for everyone, so it doesn't tell why enneagram in itself is more helpful. You could just read list of advices like that without connecting them to types or typology.
...the human race will disappear. Other races will appear and disappear in turn. The sky will become icy and void, pierced by the feeble light of half-dead stars. Which will also disappear. Everything will disappear. And what human beings do is just as free of sense as the free motion of elementary particles. Good, evil, morality, feelings? Pure 'Victorian fictions'.
INTp
I was going to quote a bunch of crap, but, basically, just think about all that stuff Jake said.
Wond'ring aloud, How we feel today. Last night sipped the sunset, My hand in her hair. We are our own saviours, As we start both our hearts, Beating life Into each other. ~Ian Anderson
who's jake?
Actually I think ennegaram is about motivation and socionics more about behavior.
Join my Enneagram Discord: https://discord.gg/ND4jCAcs
That's helpful for all nerdy introverts in school who actually did their homework.Here's a short summary of the part of the Enneagram theory I like and find more helpful than Socionics :
E4s
- Essence (what this type dream of) : connection
- Vice (how we act before living in the essence): Envy
- Fixation (triggered by the vice (since it doesn't lead to essence)) : Melancholy
- Basic Desire - specialness
- Basic Fear - ordinariness
- Virtue - Kindness
Does it sound familiar?
I like how enneagram theory empiricizes centers for traits instead of traits themselves...ie head center as opposed to say intuition or perceiving.
well, not really. the traits really are mostly based on superficialities since everyone is 5w6 sp/sx at heart, as you know.
i think of jung as unequivocally 5w4, but i'd buy that, more or less. it's better than the typewatch version, anyway.
Why I think E type is full of it
So, you'll claim that I'm a E2 and with this supposedly I am ever loving and help because I want love and appreciation or acknowledgement in return...I'm setting out on explaining why I think E is BS.
Here we go.
So, I'm in a relationship with someone I find intelligent, well traveled, worldly, interested in conversing on all sorts of topics with me, has wide and verried interests in things, can enjoy various topics/interests with me, comes from a good family and I can't wait to go to New York with him so I can enjoy good food with him. I'm in no sense or way interested in helping him. The only love I want to give and receive is in the form of support. "Honey, I want to go be a rocket scientist"...."please do, does this mean we can go to space?" companionship is what I want. Why would you not want to go to space with someone you love? Interesting point. Well, if you can tell me you've been in love and not thought of that one and the joys of shared conversation with them then I can suppose you'd go to the moon and enjoy your company by yourself.
Anyway, my point is that we've been together for months now and neither one of us wants to get or do something for the other person because we want LOVE and appreciation as this whole E type thing claims. In fact, I do things for people who I feel need help BECAUSE they ask for it. Because they make it a point to say and state their current situation at nausea until it's like "ok, I'll do this so that you can finally talk about something else." So, how does this whole thing factor into E2 claims that we do it to receive appreciation? It makes no sense to me as now I'm with someone who is a wonderful person and who doesn't ask or stress anything of me except.."walk here, I'm only two blocks away..." and me saying "I can't...I have to do laundry"
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-30-2013 at 01:38 PM.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
You see Enneagram as a stereotypical model like Socionics, it is not that way. It's more about the vice and virtue of each type, the rest is totally variable according to individual.
I don't see how anything you typed has anything to do with enneagram at all. "I'm nice because I'm nice not because I'm a 2"? Is that the tl;dr for that?
Enneagram has levels of mental health - 9 levels inside each of the 9 types. If you are a 2, you might not be a really bad (mentally unhealthy) 2. You see, enneagram is about self-development. You study enneagram to get better at something, so it puts you on a scale as to how neurotic you are.
A low level enneagram 3 is a psychopathic killer, like the Joker from batman. You see, a run of the mill enneagram 3, like our own @William is not the Joker. Although, he is but a little better behaved :-) but better behaved still none the less. Maybe he used enneagram to pull himself out of his psychopathic rage.
Socionics -
the16types.info
Reply With Quote
