Thread: Why do the wings have to be next to the type?

1. Okay. If my terrible understanding of the system is correct, then wings represent somewhat of a "secondary" type. If my terrible understanding of what Magic is saying is correct, he basically claims that there's no systematic or logical reason why these "secondary" types should be limited to those specific types--those that neighbor the "primary" type. So it's not about the whether secondary types can or cannot be identified--it's about what limits are placed on what one's secondary type can be.

I agree with him, and I welcome any systems that have a more logical reason for bounds on secondary types.

Like... ohhh, I dunno, a 3x3 matrix form with the types arranged on two axes. It could do cool things like wrap around on the edges and stuff, too. ()

2. Originally Posted by Speed Gavroche
Assuming that I have understand your post, wings don't really exist but are just symbolic and spiritual representation based on anything but he structure of the enneagram figure itself. So, if wings are just an enneagram invention, and that 5w6, 7w8, 8w9 or 1w9 for example are just invention, 3w9, 1w6 or 7w2 are inventions too based on anything but the subjective representations of the inventor who think that 1 and 6 look alike for example.
Not necessarily. The difference is making a logical system that is internal consistent vs one that isn't, and making a system where the majority of it's content is derivative of a minimal amount of arbitray assertions.

The wing system in the original enneagram does not succeed at either.

3. Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan
Not necessarily. The difference is making a logical system that is internal consistent vs one that isn't, and making a system where the majority of it's content is derivative of a minimal amount of arbitray assertions.

The wing system in the original enneagram does not succeed at either.
It seems you are not a fan of the Enneagram system as a whole. Perhaps you should stick to the Myers Briggs forums?

4. Originally Posted by Rena
It seems you are not a fan of the Enneagram system as a whole. Perhaps you should stick to the Myers Briggs forums?
Well, I initially provided a lot of information about the Enneagram to people on this forum. But the same time that I was doing that, my gathering for all the information led to my critical opihion of the Enneagram.

The second link in my signature is the original thread I made to help people with the Enneagram. The first like in my signature is the product of me trying to demonstrate how the Enneagram may roughly correspond to/transform into a more logically sound system.

Though it has been brought to my attention that the Enneagram had to be changed so much that there is probably no good reason to keep calling it the Enneagram (lest I make the horrible mistake that David Keirsey made).

Anyway, I'm not going to remove myself from the discussion of a system because I am critical of it (universally applying the reasoning that I should would mean that no one can criticize anything). I'm especially going to respond to people who are fairly new to the enneagram and have rudimentary questions about it. I see a question, and I attempt to answer it with what I believe to be true.

5. A similar question:
why do the instinctual variants stacked for each person have to be the same type?

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•