# Thread: Enneagram is an overgeneralization of human nature

1. Originally Posted by jixmixfix
you could use that same argument to debate MBTI, except make it 16.
but 16 is waaaaaaaay bigger number than 9, i can easily see we can all fit in 16 boxes, but not 9.

2. Okay, hold on.

9 types each have two wings. So 18 options of those, total. (Let's forget balanced wings for simplicity's sake.)
Then we take into account variants. So 6 different sets x 18 = 108.
Now if we take into account health levels, 9 levels x 108 = 972 total different types.

Add in MBTI and we get 972 x 16 = 1552 different types.
Add in socionics, we get 1552 x 16 = 248832 types.*

What's the problem?

*(Of course, this is hypothetical, and I'm sure not all 16 can be applicable when you are a certain MBTI type. It's usually quite similar to your type in socionics. But this is hypothetical.)

3. I've felt the original Enneagram did have a way of leaving people out by getting too specific with the types, which I responded to with work on the substantial alteration of the Enneagram that me and Evan did.

However, what has already been said here is correct. Your dispute is really applicable to all typological systems.

4. Originally Posted by cloud
No offense, but I think only fools believe in the enneagram.
^
That is beautiful.

5. Originally Posted by cloud
No offense, but I think only fools...
Very well then, you contradict yourself. You must be large and contain multitudes...

6. To my knowledge, it's 162, including balanced wings and variants.

7. This was one of my first thoughts on enneagram. It felt like the number nine was so arbitrary. With MBTI, 16 came from either four dichotomies (2^4 = 16) or eight possible dominant functions paired with two possible auxiliaries (8*2 = 16). Enneagram did not seem to be split up that way at all.

But then I heard a bit about the groupings and realized that it was possible to create a framework (with help from MP) that broke the enneagram into constituent parts (3*3 = 9). That's really the only way I've been able to make sense of the system for myself (because if I can't make sense of it, I can't use it).

8. The more people you meet in life, the larger the sample size, and the more you realize the enneagram doesn't make sense. I am not anti enneagram per say, it does have some validations about human motivations.
Like the type 5 and type 8 does have alot of traits I seem to have.
But I also noticed there is a large number of people who doesn't fit in the 9 types.

It is no more accurate than astrology, which I also semi-believe and like to study but not take it as a serious system about understanding other people.
So overall I am ambivalent towards it.

9. Originally Posted by cloud
The more people you meet in life, the larger the sample size, and the more you realize the enneagram doesn't make sense. I am not anti enneagram per say, it does have some validations about human motivations.
Like the type 5 and type 8 does have alot of traits I seem to have.
But I also noticed there is a large number of people who doesn't fit in the 9 types.

It is no more accurate than astrology, which I also semi-believe and like to study but not take it as a serious system about understanding other people.
So overall I am ambivalent towards it.
I don't see how it's not more accurate than astrology. You get to choose your best-fit type from a set of types with enneagram. There is no choice in astrology.

10. Originally Posted by cloud
No offense, but I think only fools believe in the enneagram. I met many people in this world who doesn't fit either one of the 9 enneagrams, nor could I believe that human nature can be categorized and generalized into 9 types. Human beings and their psychological development comes in all shapes and sizes? I look foward to other's opinion on this?
I think it's foolish to identify with a type so much as to think that the type description is a blueprint of your personality, but it's generally enjoyable to identify with a group that shares something in common, and enneagram is one way to do that.

For example.. I identify with type 1 because I wholly identify with the "1" type's dominant need to "reduce the disorder they see in their environment".

There is nothing foolish about observing that I am much more inclined toward that than toward "[finding] out why things are the way they are" (type 5) or "[maintaining my] identity by seeing [myself] as fundamentally different from others" (type 4).

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO