My Problems with the Enneagram

[Pallas]

OK, I have a few major issues with the Enneagram, and, I hope this isn't too harsh, I am largely inclined not to even take it seriously. Here is why:

1. The Forer Effect seems like a huge component of Enneagram descriptions, especially 6, which are apparently both what they are and their opposite at the same time? That's what I call doublethink, anyhow.

2. It's somehow even more stereotyped than MBTI, despite not being even as specific as MBTI. It's more a matter of value judgments while MBTI is more about fact judgments, and that, in a way, makes it worse, since you're largely just calling someone good/bad while you're pretending to say something value-neutral. People often say Enneagram has nothing to do with how a person presents themselves or their accomplishments, so judging someone else's Enneagram type (especially making them a 6, which is both a catch-all for people who don't seem to test as anything clear and several orders of magnitude more hated than even the Zodiac sign Virgo) is just a judgment of what you think someone's internal character is like. Plus, if you think they're not acting it on the outside, you're also potentially adding a lack of integrity to that.

3. I used to think it was some mystical thing about original sin, and while it is used in some mystical traditions, that doesn't appear to be the origin. The origin appears to be a list of ten neurotic behaviors. Based on what I've seen of that list, those don't necessarily stay fixed for your entire life like the Enneagram type is supposed to (and from my observations people discard and pick these up all the time), and also they explain my results on the Enneagram much better. On the Enneagram, I tend to get some weird mix of 3, 1, and 8, which aren't anywhere near each other. Someone is like "well, you're a 6 then, they tend to test as *insert basically all of the other types except 3 or 8*". However, if I were really a 6, why are 5, 6, and and I think 7 (7 is the one about physical needs, right? I am also very low on 9, who wants to be indifferent to everything) always astronomically low whenever I take an Enneagram test? The actual explanation of my results is well-described by the list of 10 neurotic behaviors: I score high on 3 on Enneagram because they collapsed the concept of wanting to be admired by people as a form of compliance with wanting to be admired (or feared) by people as a form of aggression. In that light, all of the things I tend to score higher on, although not next to each other in the Enneagram, come out of the aggression category on the original 10 neurotic needs list, and the more moderate ones, which are also not all next to each other, come out of the list of detachment behaviors, while the compliance ones are astronomically low.

4. Enneagram has nearly a 100% correlation with sociotype once you take "wings" into account (9 x 2 = 18, and there are 16 sociotypes). It's basically just redundant information at this point.

5. Are the questions you answer on the Enneagram really about how you act, or about fantasies you have? Some people fantasize about being rich and famous, a great scientist, a mystic, a military member, etc. while they just sit at home, ditching class/work and eating Doritos while watching crappy animes because they've already seen all the good ones. But if they would like to have x/y/z, they score that on the Enneagram, because most Enneagram tests really do seem to ask about what people say they would like rather than how they actually behave. And that doesn't really give you insights into yourself or others at all (especially considering point 1).

6. I'm not really sure you need to score moderate on all of the Enneagram to be healthy. It seems fine to score low on some of them and high on others. We don't all need to act like good little Star Wars stormtroopers. (Those are all about behaviors, after all, and not all of the Enneagram ones seem inherently neurotic. The point about the neurotic ones is that they control you rather than vice versa. Also, again, see 4.)

So, are there any good counterarguments for the Enneagram out there?

[Aylen]

I don't find your post harsh at all. I have seen worse just on this forum and way worse on others. I am not a defender of enneagram but just responding with some things that come to mind.

How long have you been studying it?

How much have you researched beyond forums and random websites?

Which books have you read? Which ones just didn't ring true to you at all? Which ones were most appealing to you, if any?

How have you attempted to apply any of the information you studied? What were the results?

Revealing your enneagram type starts with a journey within and seems to be more meaningful to those who are very attracted, and good with, abstract/symbolic systems. I can't say this is always the case but is my experience so far from talking to people who have gone deeper with it than anyone who posts here. When I want to know more about enneagram I lurk some of the enneagram groups on fb and read the books suggested or follow up on other things posted to see where it leads me (sometimes in a circle) I rarely post because I find they are very knowledgeable so I would rather pay attention to what they have to say, and maybe file it away for future reference. There are other personality theories that are more appealing to more concrete thinkers in contrast to something like enneagram. Perhaps "concrete" is not the right word but it will do for now.

Socionics and MBTI being two that I feel is easier for less abstract thinkers to find some personal meaning and use for. I believe enneagram absolutely requires introspection for it to have any use beyond adding to a personality portfolio in a profile. MBTI/socionics do not because you can always look to intertype with socionics, or look to a hired "pro" for your MBTI type, for example. I still think that introspection is very useful when it comes to any system and especially when taking tests. I believe if you are going purely by Jung it does require introspection as well.

I feel kind of bad responding because it seems you are somewhat excited by certain ideas but I have seen this type of post (in various forms by lots of well meaning people) 100s of times over the years. I probably wrote it myself a few times when I had only scratched the surface of a concept.

My questions are rhetorical for the most part but thoughtful responses are appreciated.

One thing to keep in mind, and this is not directed at you, is when you are using all these theories and there is no consistency or correlations between them and your self type then perhaps it is time to go back to the beginning and see how it all fits together and where you may have wandered off the path if the contradictions are so great you can't even make sense of it.

Toward the end of his life, Gurdjieff repeated more and more frequently, “All I’m doing is teaching esoteric (or inner interpretation of) Christianity.” The second statement Gurdjieff made to his student Boris Mouravieff, a Russian emigré to Europe and fellow student of the principles of inner change. When Mouravieff asked him, “What is the origin of your esoteric teaching?” Gurdjieff enigmatically replied, “Maybe I stole it.”

[Exodus]

4. Enneagram has nearly a 100% correlation with sociotype once you take "wings" into account (9 x 2 = 18, and there are 16 sociotypes). It's basically just redundant information at this point.

This is also my main problem with it. It's much more vague than socionics, yet overlaps so much as to not provide a whole lot of extra information.

However, I wouldn't say this holds for all enneatypes equally. I'm a 5w6 LII apparently, and knowing that I'm 5w6 doesn't really tell me much over being LII, since it's basically a hodgepodge of LII and ILI traits. The one thing unique to the Enneagram that sort of seems unique is the supposed development levels, but I'm not sure how well they correspond to reality.

Plus, it seems like many people don't fit particularly well into any of the types -- one could make the same criticism of socionics I suppose, but I tend to think it is less true.

[Pallas]

Well, as to development, I think that just shows how healthy people are in terms of being able to interact in a wide variety of situations, in other words, not generally "neurotic" (not in the "neuroticism is a personality trait!" that Big Five people like to say, but just in terms of knowing how not to be overpowered by fear). I don't think you need the enneagram to do that. Also, the thing about socionics is that it just shows how information is structured in the psyche, which is both generic enough that it actually does apply to everyone once you strip away the stereotypes (many of which I've found to be laughably bad and the rest to be still horrible) and is actually possible to empirically test its predictions, like the Reinin dichotomies, intertype relations, associative testing, etc. as well as being generally quite reliable compared to nearly every other personality test (including stuff mainstream science loves so much like the Big Five). With enneagram, I don't see how there's anything else to measure but a person's fantasies and their behaviors.