Enneagram types without exaggerations
I'm done with enneagram descriptions everywhere, I feel like we live In a fantasy world or something. wtf is wrong with those descriptions ? like 5s main fear is being helpless and incapable, why tf they project him as math geek and desperate for knowledge, and 6s, yep 6s, why they must be that fearful human who is filled with anxiety, fear the air he/she is breathing and escapes from butterflies, whats wrong with those people, and 7s those extreme extroverts who are crazy and all the time his smile reaching his back from his/her optimism, does he/she always have to be that party animal? guys if anybody have descriptions that makes even a little sense send it here, rescue me please, im done, I will commit suicide.
The problem is that if the character profiles aren’t exaggerated or have their defining traits made obvious enough, then it will be harder for people to type themselves.
The tradeoff is that enneagram is extremely fantastical and looks pretty unrealistic as a result, yeah. Enneagram is only meant to characterize some specific dynamics in people’s characters. Not their entire personalities. Socionics etc isn’t either though, really, but Socionics is more multifaceted and detailed and so should be more of a realistic overall representation of a person. See how much more complicated Socionics is though, and how much more frustrated people get over Socionics as a result.
Lol thanks for this post, it made me smile. You have a flair for theatrics. To answer your question, besides what sb said, I would compare enneagram to socionics. You cannot really read one set of type descriptions in socionics and call it a day, because at first no description really looks like it can fit a real life person too (at least for me, who had a hard time applying the theory), but when you read more authors, discuss the theory with others, type yourself and others, it gets better and more applicable.
Same with enneagram. You can't just read the first link that pops up on Google -- of course enneagraminstitute descriptions will be superficial, as they're actually a cash grab for you to take their test lol. Which is fair enough, but not really accurate. The Riso and Hudson book goes much more detailed and makes more realistic profiles of people that you can look into. All of the different books are more detailed and comprehensive than the websites.
But your best method would be trying to type people. You may see someone, and they may obviously fit the bill for 7, and yet they may also be less of a party animal and more of a casual escapist. Or you'll see a 5 who's not a stereotypical nerd, but is actually a teenage girl who has a great desire to move out because she feels deeply uncomfortable with relying on her parents. The types are there with many variations, and observing them in people will help you broaden the preexisting definitions and help you understand them.
Honestly, enneagram helped me a lot more than socionics has done. Socionics goes more in depth with cognitive understanding, but enneagram is "of the heart", that is, it's a lot more feeling than cognition oriented. As an F type it spoke to me, and led to me improving my personal relationships as a result. I've seen a lot of thinking types here calling it useless, illogical, and wishy-washy, but to each their own.
Edit, since you asked for descriptions:
enneagrammer.com is better imo than the enneainstitute, even though still superficial.
@Farag, I agree with @voider when she says that both Socionics and enneagram systems require a fair amount of real world experience to understand. The ability to classify a person with even a 50% likelihood of being right takes years, although you will probably find that some people fall into a category quickly and some never do.
I’ve read books by a number of enneagram authors, and my personal favorite author is Helen Palmer. While she sometimes edges into the “ancient wisdom” side of the enneagram, in my opinion she has the best-defined, most accurate descriptions of enneagram types out there. She has a very analytical mind and much of what she says is informed by holding focus groups.
She has written several books on the subject. They are all good.
You might prefer a different author, but in any case, you have to put in your time and do real-world comparisons before this stuff starts to make sense. But once it does, it really does.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 03-22-2020 at 03:57 AM.