The Greatest Enneagram Book EVER

[aka-kitsune]

Seriously, go out and buy it now if you're at all interested in enneagram. Superior to any and all interpretations of enneagram type and characteristics, and reads like a diagnostic manual:



http://www.amazon.com/Character-Neur...9846983&sr=1-3

Of course, it's apparently also now out of print and you'll have to hunt for it.

[Gilly]

Actually this site appears to have them in stock for much cheaper than the new ones on Amazon; I just ordered one from them:

http://www.bythewaybooks.com/cgi-bin/btw455/index.html

[aka-kitsune]

Cool!

I've been rereading the section on type 4 again. Dammit, it's really uncanny how accurate this is regarding my personal behaviors and defense mechanisms...

Really detailed and pretty much "clinical" in terminology and descriptions. Not at all wordy and new agey like the Riso-Hudson stuff. Might be less accessible to a non-psychologically-bent individual, though. There's ample corollary to psychoanalysis theory, including Freud and Jung.

[FDG]

I disagree with the main premise of the book (which is rightly embodied by the title "character and neurosis"), thus I have read it and found it not excessively worthwhile.

[reckoner]

The cover looks like a pile of turds.

[Gilly]

The cover looks like a pile of turds.

lol I thought that too.

[aka-kitsune]

I disagree with the main premise of the book (which is rightly embodied by the title "character and neurosis"), thus I have read it and found it not excessively worthwhile.

Too harsh, eh?

I tend to be of the philosophy that everyone is neurotic, so why sugar-coat it...? You disagree then that type inherently defines character flaw?

[FDG]

Too harsh, eh?

Well, not exclusively that - it seems to be unobjective to characterize the whole humanity by its negative traits (supposing neurosis is a negative term).

I tend to be of the philosophy that everyone is neurotic, so why sugar-coat it...?

It could be said that everyone is -insert adjective here-. What matters is the (even imprecise) quantitative measure of -adjective-. If everybody is neurotic, but in a scale of 0 to 100 some people are 1 percent neurotic and some others 90 percent, it's likely that a typology based on neurosis will correctly identify only those with an high percentage.

You disagree then that type inherently defines character flaw?

Yes. I think that defines both flaws and positive qualities, and that different individuals may emphasize one set or the other.

[aka-kitsune]

Well, not exclusively that - it seems to be unobjective to characterize the whole humanity by its negative traits (supposing neurosis is a negative term).

It isn't really inherently negative; that is just general perception that flaw=negative. Neurosis is not psychosis. And no one is a "perfect" personality. We all go about trying to resolve our "problems" and orient ourselves through the lens of core "fixation". That's the premise of enneagram, at least.

Awareness of our tendencies toward neurosis is key.

It could be said that everyone is -insert adjective here-. What matters is the (even imprecise) quantitative measure of -adjective-. If everybody is neurotic, but in a scale of 0 to 100 some people are 1 percent neurotic and some others 90 percent, it's likely that a typology based on neurosis will correctly identify only those with an high percentage.

The book does not address "quantitative" any moreso than the DSM does. It's fashioned in that model. Identification of the neurotic elements. Nowhere does it contend that we are ONLY our neuroses. Just that we have a core orientation derived from early psychological wound and subsequent strategy to manage it.

Yes. I think that defines both flaws and positive qualities, and that different individuals may emphasize one set or the other.

Interesting. I actually see emphasizing positive qualities to the exclusion or minimization of flaws as flaw itself. But to each his own...

Either way, I have found this book to be more precise in clearly defining the scope of personality of each enneagram type than others I have read. It hits closer to home than the "I'm OK, You're OK" school of thought.

[dbmmama]

It isn't really inherently negative; that is just general perception that flaw=negative. Neurosis is not psychosis. And no one is a "perfect" personality. We all go about trying to resolve our "problems" and orient ourselves through the lens of core "fixation". That's the premise of enneagram, at least.

Awareness of our tendencies toward neurosis is key.


The book does not address "quantitative" any moreso than the DSM does. It's fashioned in that model. Identification of the neurotic elements. Nowhere does it contend that we are ONLY our neuroses. Just that we have a core orientation derived from early psychological wound and subsequent strategy to manage it.


Interesting. I actually see emphasizing positive qualities to the exclusion or minimization of flaws as flaw itself. But to each his own...

Either way, I have found this book to be more precise in clearly defining the scope of personality of each enneagram type than others I have read. It hits closer to home than the "I'm OK, You're OK" school of thought.

to me, i believe in both at the same time.

we do all have neurosis AND we are all OK. without both sides of that same coin, we have an incomplete picture.

i know people who read ONLY these neurosis books and don't take that necessary action to deal with them in healthy ways. and then i know people who going around so "happy" but blind to the underlying issues that perpetuate certain circumstances and wonder why in the end, they're not truly happy afterall.

i believe in a balance of both...for actual health on all levels.

[aka-kitsune]

to me, i believe in both at the same time.

we do all have neurosis AND we are all OK. without both sides of that same coin, we have an incomplete picture.

i know people who read ONLY these neurosis books and don't take that necessary action to deal with them in healthy ways. and then i know people who going around so "happy" but blind to the underlying issues that perpetuate certain circumstances and wonder why in the end, they're not truly happy afterall.

i believe in a balance of both...for actual health on all levels.

Of course I agree. There is the dark and light side of the garden and you simply can't eat from the fruit of one side to the exclusion of the other. (Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde there).:wink:

I think I just favor this particular book for the clarity of the text. Doesn't seem to have an agenda, like R&Hs Enneagram Empire, he's not fostering a cult or peddling anything. Not complicated or jargony. I didn't mean to imply that it's the one book everyone needs, just that in terms of describing the fixation, this book does so clearly and concisely with rich insights into the neurotic motives and relevant mechanisms for each.

But then again, I'm particularly interested in the places where personality becomes fixation, etc.

[dbmmama]

Of course I agree. There is the dark and light side of the garden and you simply can't eat from the fruit of one side to the exclusion of the other. (Paraphrasing Oscar Wilde there).:wink:

I think I just favor this particular book for the clarity of the text. Doesn't seem to have an agenda, like R&Hs Enneagram Empire, he's not fostering a cult or peddling anything. Not complicated or jargony. I didn't mean to imply that it's the one book everyone needs, just that in terms of describing the fixation, this book does so clearly and concisely with rich insights into the neurotic motives and relevant mechanisms for each.

But then again, I'm particularly interested in the places where personality becomes fixation, etc.

cool, thanks for clarifying. i will check it out then. i'm very interested in this same kind of stuff in the way you're saying here.

[FDG]

Interesting. I actually see emphasizing positive qualities to the exclusion or minimization of flaws as flaw itself. But to each his own...

It's clearly a flaw. The best way seems (to me) to clearly define both the positive and negative qualities of every given type, saying that healthier people are defined by emphasizing more the positive qualities of a given type, and that unhealthy people are defined by emphasizing more the negative qualities of a given type. Obviously where precisely negative and positive lies implies an arbitrary value judgment - but so does the concept of "neurosis".

What I mean by neurosis is similar to what is stated by the official dictionary definition:

1. Also called psychoneurosis. a functional disorder in which feelings of anxiety, obsessional thoughts, compulsive acts, and physical complaints without objective evidence of disease, in various degrees and patterns, dominate the personality.
2. a relatively mild personality disorder typified by excessive anxiety or indecision and a degree of social or interpersonal maladjustment.

Clearly, this is a negative state. However, perhaps you are using "neurosis" in a slightly different way. Perhaps what you mean is: "Every person will manifest hir enneagram fixation in a magnified way in a moment of neurosis".

Either way, I have found this book to be more precise in clearly defining the scope of personality of each enneagram type than others I have read. It hits closer to home than the "I'm OK, You're OK" school of thought.

I generally dislike the school of thoughts that exclusively manage to "bring out the strenghts" of every type. I would (personally) like best a presentation which gives unambiguos information on the most usual behavior of every type. Perhaps the best way to construct this picture is simply by reading all the authors and trying to mesh them with our personal experience.

[aestrivex]

that you disagree with the idea that the enneagram represents a sort of unhealthy ego defense mechanism to cover up one's flaws seems to contradict the enneagram literature that i've been reading.

[Hitta]

Too harsh, eh?

I tend to be of the philosophy that everyone is neurotic, so why sugar-coat it...? You disagree then that type inherently defines character flaw?

Wow, someone that understands.

[pinkcanary]

...