Enneagram is an overgeneralization of human nature

[yenom]

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?

 

[Charmed Justice]

I read something on an Enneagram website that said that some people will not fit inside the system as well as others.

 

[jixmixfix]

you could use that same argument to debate MBTI, except make it 16.

 

[BlueScreen]

Or 16 types . There are at least 500 million other ENFPs out there. I'm not too worried that we are all the same or even very similar.

Having 9 types just means the categories are broad. You are right, the nine types don't encompass all the possibilities. But it gives some information to know where a person fits best in the system, so provides us with something useful. I'm actually not sure of the psychology and theory behind it, but it would be interesting to know why it is the way it is. The dichotomies of MBTi make some sense and create what seems to be a closed system, whereas the enneagram seems more like star signs.

 

[the state i am in]

18 types, plus flavors. they're all just strategies that eventually come into shape. but perhaps you'd rather stay with freud, or even reject ego-fixation altogether as a concept, or maybe take a lacanian route? theory is always crazy bc it's a product of language whose backing cannot be seen in plain sight in so much as it can be deemed consistent/coherent within its own language/logic system. the problem of self-typing, or "officially" administered results is the problem of passing information into the system thru interpretation and back in order to judge the results empirically. all of these stages can be and are flawed.

 

[jixmixfix]

I've always said and believed this saying, in that jung's theory is trying to explain a stereotype that explains our behavior and thought processes as humans, not vice versa. The main reason for people to study MBTI is to not simulate a stereotype but to understand it.

 

[BlackCat]

OP = frustrated person that can't find their way in either typology system.

 

[slowriot]

9 enneagram types with two subtypes for each type = 18 types

18 types with different descriptory differences (the wing can be either light, moderate or heavy) = 54 types.

54 different types is a lot more than any other system of personality typing.

You could even take it further, since a person could be a 5w4 where the 5 stood for 51% of the 5 and the 4 stood for 49% of that persons personality. While another could have 85% of 5 and 15% of 4 in their personality. The first example being a light wing 4 the second a heavy wing 4. So its so different for each person. Plus some theories talk about 9 levels of development. Which means that on top of the percentages you can also take the levels of developement in to account.

I would say as Ive read more about enneagram it makes a lot more sense to me as a tool I can use in personal development than MBTi. MBTi's strengths are different and can better be used to identify and communicate better with other people.

 

[Xander]

9 types, two wings plus balanced wings, plus the additional influences I've seen...

That's 54 before you even think about weighting like slow riot indicates.

If it were a perfect fit then it'd just be "Hi I'm Dave, I'm me".

 

[the state i am in]

9 enneagram types with two subtypes for each type = 18 types

18 types with different descriptory differences (the wing can be either light, moderate or heavy) = 54 types.

54 different types is a lot more than any other system of personality typing.

You could even take it further, since a person could be a 5w4 where the 5 stood for 51% of the 5 and the 4 stood for 49% of that persons personality. While another could have 85% of 5 and 15% of 4 in their personality. The first example being a light wing 4 the second a heavy wing 4. So its so different for each person. Plus some theories talk about 9 levels of development. Which means that on top of the percentages you can also take the levels of developement in to account.

I would say as Ive read more about enneagram it makes a lot more sense to me as a tool I can use in personal development than MBTi. MBTi's strengths are different and can better be used to identify and communicate better with other people.

i think i agree. although i do find that cognitive function development, cultivation, style, etc all provide different feels for communication within the same mb type. i think combining them both helps identify needs when communicating (which = thinking out-loud, socially).

the key is ego-complex vs communicating (again, = thinking/information processing). both systems can be used to suss out an almost infinite number of psychological relationships. (ie in mb, the quadras get interesting, or interaction styles, or different temperament theories, etc).

 

[Chloe]

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.

 

[Bubbles]

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.)

 

[Magic Poriferan]

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.

 

[The Outsider]

No offense, but I think only fools believe in the enneagram.

^
That is beautiful.

 

[speculative]

No offense, but I think only fools...

Very well then, you contradict yourself. You must be large and contain multitudes...

 

[iamathousandapples]

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

 

[redacted]

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).

 

[yenom]

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.

 

[redacted]

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.

 

[disregard]

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).