I hate the type six descriptions.
I hate the type six descriptions.
Do you take enneagram seriously?
And if so, why?
Yes. Very relevant to my relationships, and manifests as the literature describes. I'm pretty certain I'm E9 after having to come face to face with my issues with asserting myself (true story: I was calling that Angry Gul. When I was finally pushed hard enough (which was very, very hard) to want to stand up for myself, I thought that was "angry"., seriously :/) and being too passive, accommodating, self effacing or whatever and forcing down that little niggle that's perpetually frustrated with myself for not making my needs, feelings, and thoughts known.
I don't want to hijack the thread, but yeah, I can see everything playing out in genius beauty, and I can safely put a lot of stock in the enneagram.
One thought I've had is that you should look at your dominant instinct to figure out where your enneagram fixation is going to manifest the most clearly. I wonder if an SP Six is just going to flat out look a little less Sixey when it comes to how they deal with groups and connections or intimacy and attachment, for instance.
I was reading a couple of sites that said that your instinct is tainted by your fixation, such that you attempt to use your instinct's natural domain to reconnect with the "missing idea" of your e-type. For example, a self-pres Nine might, on an unconscious level, "fill in" the lost sense of integration between everything in the world through sensory indulgence, or a sexual Nine will go about "merging" with a special other or with nature.
I think it's also a problem with the Enneagram that it's possible to become too mystical or spiritual with it, and get stuck with being led up a garden path when it comes to introspection and thus ultimately unable to use the tool as it was intended. Also, it's very easy to say "Well, that behaviour or reaction could be because of X, Y, or Z enneatype" and be ultimately unable to diagnose yourself.
I think it's also worth mentioning Tom Condon of The Changeworks (Changeworks Online - change solutions that work in business and for individuals.). His views are as follows: the Enneagram is a beautiful map. It tells you who you are, how you got to be that way, where you want to be, and the challenges that exist between that destination and your present location. It is not, however, the vehicle that will get you there.
Anyway, I was thinking out loud there. Conclusion: now that everything makes sense, yes, I take it seriously; but it's not a system that's easy to use well or properly.
Enneagram is the only system that makes sense to me.
The saddest ESFj
...
Only somewhat. I think there are a lot of flaws in the system precisely because the creators attempted to design it in order to be like a self-help mechanism, rather than focusing primarily on doing the job of creating an accurate portrayal of the types themselves. If they'd paid more attention to the basics like the aforementioned, we'd have much less of a problem using it to help ourselves if we so desired. But with the current status of the system, the pseudo- and fuzzy-spirituality just throws a stick in everything.
Enneagram is more reliable than Socionics, not to mention more straightforward and integral to psychology.
Here's what I don't disagree with:
- the notion that people's traits can be viewed as self-reinforcing
Here's what I do disagree with:
- the notion that everyone must be one of the 81 enneagram types.
I don't disagree that the Enneagram types exist. But from all that I've read about it I absolutely disagree that there are only 81 types and no more. I don't think any one of those types capture me or my traits.
Yet even still, it seems to me that Enneagram fails as a behaviorally descriptive system and succeeds as an emotionally descriptive one. There are times when I feel that I'm anyone of the 9 types. But compare with socionics: there is never a time I've looked at a description for say, ESFP, and said "that could be me".
Another thing about enneagram: there is no centralization, nor do there appear to be authoritative definitions. (a la Socionics/MBTI) All the descriptions have in common is that they limit themselves to 81 types.
Last edited by tcaudilllg; 02-16-2010 at 08:20 PM.
well you're wrong. If you took the time to understand the 9 types, you'd realize there's only 1 you could be, maybe with influences from two others.
The saddest ESFj
...
I have, and I'm not wrong, either. I also know that there are NOT 9 "types", but that every organization uses a different definition which they affix to every nine slots.Originally Posted by electric sheep
I know what it's about: nine virtues, yeah. Who said there were nine? Really makes no sense in a Ti world where everything comes in pairs and three is a sign of incomplete knowledge.
Everyone has to "have" the 9 types in them, at least to some superficial degree, because they are each representative of a basically effective strategy for dealing with one of the 3 different attitudes that we intrinsically associate with our own survival. But one of them is going to be the most emphasized, and in most people that emphasis plays itself out fairly predictably.
tcaud, I would say the only real potential e-types for you are 3w4 and 6w5; your instinct is likely so/sx, the "catalyst." I would say you are most likely 6w5.
No!
it seems nothing more then a simple catagorization with some random criteria:
there are 3 people. happy angry and sad.
There you have it, I invented the triagram.
oh and in certain life stages you can switch from one type to another. yesterday I was angry, today I'm happy.
It's not about a structure of the psyche, like socionics so... Although I rate it a bit higher then astrology, enneagram is still a pseudo science.
Why don't you start with 9 types first. If you want to do the full progression, there are 9, then there are 18 to include the wing, then 54 to include the primary instinct, then 108 to include the secondary instinct, then even more than that if you want to get into trifix, and even more than that if you want to talk about subwings (not a well known concept). If you can't narrow yourself down to one of the 9 types, then it's useless to consider more. I can't answer why there isn't an even number of types. That just sounds like some kind of obsessive need for even numbers on your part. Maybe you lack the emotional faculties to really grasp the enneagram?
The saddest ESFj
...
It's because for every true possibility there exists a corresponding antithetical possibility.
ok I'll just take your word for it.
The saddest ESFj
...
This is your issue with the Enneagram. You can basically view each type as a point within a dynamic system. Any type can disintegrate one way, or integrate another. In no way is any type measured against any other type. There are various comparisons one can draw, naturally, like "As a type addresses and overcomes their fears and reconnects with and feels their desires being fulfilled, they take on traits similar to the best qualities of another type" (integration), "As a type's desires are frustrated and as a result they fall prey to more and more fears, they take on traits similar tot he worst qualities of another type" (disintegration) and "Some people of a certain type have characteristics more similar to another related type than other people of the same type" (wings). You get the idea.
Structures like the centres and triads are groupings superimposed later, mostly likely because the brain is very naturally attuned to groupings and patterns.
The Enneagram is not a static system, so you can't treat it like it's a metric in of itself. It's a way of taking a snapshot of a dynamic system that has qualities that can be measured with an idea and its opposite (such as healthy and unhealthy).
Am I making any sense?
@Gul: So Enneagram is in your view not a static system, but a dynamic one? Then in that case there is no convergence between it and say, socionics?
That's a very interesting question, and I'm very grateful you asked that, because it's not something that I've ever thought about
I'd like to ask what you mean by "convergence", then I should be able to give you an answer.
I mean, there is no such thing as an enneagram type which corresponds perfectly to an analogous type in socionics.That's a very interesting question, and I'm very grateful you asked that, because it's not something that I've ever thought about
I'd like to ask what you mean by "convergence", then I should be able to give you an answer.
That's a difficult question. I'd say "no", but because the Enneagram and Socionics describe very different things. Thus, the Enneagram being a dynamic system and Socionics being a static one is a symptom of them lying within different domains, and that is the problem with trying to correlate them.
While Socionics describes how one processes "stuff" and what that means for your relationships with people who process "stuff" differently, the Enneagram describes how one inherits a variety of defences throughout their development and how these manifest, set the individual back, and how they can be overcome.
EDIT
I'm tired and not too happy with my answer. I might take another crack at it after I've had a decent night's sleep.
To me, it's just another window in the house.
81? enneagram comprises only 9 types
today is a gift, that's why its called the present
It looks like he tried to export his dual type theory to enneagram. 9x9 = 81
(if you don't know what that is, don't worry about it)
The saddest ESFj
...
Removed at User Request
I take everything seriously.
50% serious, 50% not.
Socionics helps me more with my relationships with others, Enneagram helps me more with my self and my own thoughts about things.
Funny. Socionics has only negatively affected my relationships by providing a script to hold to, at the expense of comfort and openness. Meanwhile, the Enneagram has been a great help in figuring out how my fixation screws with my relationships.
Are you kidding? It not only proposes likely sources of the fixations, but actually deals with the human mind in a manner that is vastly more compatible with modern psychology than Socionics. It's also much easier to observe with a high level of confidence, and tends to manifest consistently, whereas Socionics types are both more vague and, because of the breadth of what they claim to explain, manifest much differently in individuals.
If you didn't have down syndrome, you'd probably see more clearly.I hope you'll realize how incompatible you are in this position. You should quit honorably.
Removed at User Request
Dedication? Christ, don't make me pull out my fucking Socionics resume; suffice to say, if you think I lack "dedication," you might actually have Downs.
No, actually you couldn't. Well, you could, but they'd be entirely useless, because you're a hard-headed dolt who apparently doesn't know the first thing about how either the human mind or evolution works.I know what that "system" deals with. E-types are arbitrarily chosen, if I'd have interest I could come up with other "types" like that. Sociotypes are vague because they're natural, we are in the process of understanding them, they're not based on our prejudices, on how we view nature, but how it is.
Lol, nice try. How the fuck is Socionics a natural science? Are you smoking crack?The Enneagram is a human science while Socionics is a natural one.
Removed at User Request
Calling something a "natural science" indicates that it has specific origins in immediately observable or directly deductible physical reality. That is not true at all of Socionics.
You're not studying the theory accurately. I won't say you have Down Syndrome like Gilly, but really you're not making any sense. It's like you are trying to imply your own personal meaning to these theories when there isn't any and you're trying to make what you want it to say instead of what it actually says. This is what people do too much.It has little to do with psychology, it doesn't investigate any causes, but everything is based on the resulting apparent social act. It is not even worth of criticism, actually.
I would at first try to understand what socionics/enneagram is really saying before you make any insights about it.
And really don't get all offensive or defensive or whateverisve, because some body understands something better than you. There's no shame in being a student and realizing that you have a lot to learn.
Removed at User Request
We know you do...
I don't take the E-gram seriously. No.
-
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
Enneagram is flawed in many ways, but if you know why something is flawed, that can tell you more about how things work. Enneagram is inexact makes no predictions and is unfalsifiable but it does categorize classes of behavior and tries to explain some instinctual processes but there is no system.
If you are capable of clear reasoning, it shouldn't be hard to explain how something is directly related to concrete reality. Unless you're full of shit.
tcaud, dude, I don't take anything that's discussed here seriously.
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
I know enneagram pretty well. But IMHO this system is pretty useless even though it's quite interesting.
I mean - what do I get out of knowing who I am and how I am not supposed to be? Nothing! I know my flaws but unfortunately people who have created and written about enneagram didn't know nothing about how to motivate others and how to push them forward. Such a shame. It's like all these stupid, spiritual and constant struggles with being a human - being ashamed of yourself, strangling yourself and generally becoming a saint but unhappy. I'm dissapointed with this system.
Socionics tells you exactly about your potential and what you can do about it to grow. Socionics is a useful guide on how to relate to people.
And Enneagram? It's no good.
Hm I thought that's what the enneagram did. I guess enneagram is more flexible and leaves more room for you to figure things out on your own. Socionics has some communist/collectivist influences--you have your place in life, everything is figured out for you, everyone is equally necessary and part of a whole, etc. Socionics doesn't allow for growth or improvement--you are where you are, and you're going to stay there.
The saddest ESFj
...
Removed at User Request
Reply With Quote
