Primal Fears of Sociopaths, Psychopaths and those who Indulge

[011235813]

Enneagram's accuracy is validated by experience, yes.

As perhaps this could be too. It's quite reactionary and close-minded to assume that all new hypotheses are WRONG before you've even attempted to test them according to the criteria you mentioned. This is new so obviously data collection is going to take a little more time.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

As perhaps this could be too. It's quite reactionary and close-minded to assume that all new hypotheses are WRONG before you've even attempted to test them according to the criteria you mentioned. This is new so obviously data collection is going to take a little more time.

It's naive to think taht a new hypothesis is right. And what I see is that Zang's one is shit.

Enneagram was new to me either at the beginning, and I was very skeptic about that, but I was finally convinced. So, I'am not reactionnary or close minded, but simply critical and perfectly able to differentiate a right opinion next to a wrong opinion.

That's it.

 

[011235813]

It's naive to think taht a new hypothesis is right. And what I see is that Zang's one is shit.

Enneagram was new to me either at the beginning, and I was very skeptic about that, but I was finally convinced. So, I'am not reactionnary or close minded, but simply critical and perfectly able to differentiate a right opinion next to a wrong opinion.

That's it.

You assume that not saying "THIS SUCKS LOLOL!!1" from the get go is a wholesale adoption of a particular viewpoint. It's not. The point of this thread is to assess, critique and correct what exists, not to accept or reject it out of hand.

Of course, you're entitled to your views as we're all entitled to ours.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

You assume that not saying "THIS SUCKS LOLOL!!1" from the get go is a wholesale adoption of a particular viewpoint. It's not. The point of this thread is to assess, critique and correct what exists, not to accept or reject it out of hand.

Of course, you're entitled to your views as we're all entitled to ours.

Enneagram is an esoteric system who is an heritage of a millenary tradition, Zang's system is just a product of his intelectual masturbation.

 

[011235813]

Enneagram is an esoteric system who is an heritage of a millenary tradition, Zang's system is just a product of his intelectual masturbation.

Irrelevant. You're not analysing the system he's described critically. Instead, you're resorting to slapping on a bunch of labels without any real analysis of what you perceive the problem to be.

Obviously you don't need to engage a system you find unattractive or flawed but don't expect other people to accept your blanket assertions that "THIS IS WRONG" without any kind of substantive explanation behind it.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

Irrelevant. You're not analysing the system he's described critically. Instead, you're resorting to slapping on a bunch of labels without any real analysis of what you perceive the problem to be.

Obviously you don't need to engage a system you find unattractive or flawed but don't expect other people to accept your blanket assertions that "THIS IS WRONG" without any kind of substantive explanation behind it.

I analysed it, but I have'nt the drive to argue or convince you, it would be too much tiring I'm here in dilletant. I'm not that I'am right and that's enough to me.

It's your role to prove that that system is correct if you are a believer.

 

[mujigay]

It's naive to think taht a new hypothesis is right. And what I see is that Zang's one is shit.

Enneagram was new to me either at the beginning, and I was very skeptic about that, but I was finally convinced. So, I'am not reactionnary or close minded, but simply critical and perfectly able to differentiate a right opinion next to a wrong opinion.
That's it.

I just found that little gem enormously entertaining.

Carry on, my dear fellows.

 

[Santosha]

I guess I am a bit confused by the OP in general. 'The primary fear of psychopaths, sociopaths, and those who indulge'...

That seems to be an odd combination, or am i missing something? I get that INTJ's tend to abhor self-indulgence, lol, but also think that many people self indulge in some fashion (even INTJ's) and wonder why your throwing these into the same category?

I also think placing a psychopath or sociopath into ANY enneagram type would be extremely difficult. Just like placing someone with schizophrenia. The enneagrams point is to classify and categorize fixations and behaviors that revolve around a powerful, largely unconscious emotional response to the loss of contact with the core of the self.

The very biological nature of the sociopath and psychopath would be at odds in understanding how fixation develops through emotional responce of loss of contact with core self, because neurologically they don't have the capacity for emotional responce. Atleast they don't have the capacity for empathy I should say. And perhaps that is where I'm wrong.. that you'd have to have some kind of empathetic component to even emotionally respond hmmm........

Anyhow - Here is an interesting article: http://home.uchicago.edu/decety/publications/Decety_ER2011.pdf

I

 

[King sns]

I analysed it, but I have'nt the drive to argue or convince you, it would be too much tiring I'm here in dilletant. I'm not that I'am right and that's enough to me.

It's your role to prove that that system is correct if you are a believer.

It's not about believing or not believing, it's about trying to understand without throwing it away immediately. If you're going to say things like "that's bullshit, intellectual masturbation" etc. you should be willing to back it up- or else, just consider your "analysis" right and move on without saying anything- what you're doing here is just trolling and bothering people around you without adding anything of real substance- I can't speak for anyone else, (though I'm guessing many would agree) when I say I want to read content - for or against the OP topic.

 

[011235813]

I guess I am a bit confused by the OP in general. 'The primary fear of psychopaths, sociopaths, and those who indulge'...

That seems to be an odd combination, or am i missing something? I get that INTJ's tend to abhor self-indulgence, lol, but also think that many people self indulge in some fashion (even INTJ's) and wonder why your throwing these into the same category?

I also think placing a psychopath or sociopath into ANY enneagram type would be extremely difficult. Just like placing someone with schizophrenia. The enneagrams point is to classify and categorize fixations and behaviors that revolve around a powerful, largely unconscious emotional response to the loss of contact with the core of the self.

The very biological nature of the sociopath and psychopath would be at odds in understanding how fixation develops through emotional responce of loss of contact with core self, because neurologically they don't have the capacity for emotional responce. Atleast they don't have the capacity for empathy I should say. And perhaps that is where I'm wrong.. that you'd have to have some kind of empathetic component to even emotionally respond hmmm........

Anyhow - Here is an interesting article: http://home.uchicago.edu/decety/publications/Decety_ER2011.pdf

I

[MENTION=8595]Zang[/MENTION] isn't using the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" in the medical sense, nor are all 11s and 12s actually deranged individuals. These are just labels to describe the groups until he (or someone else) can find better names for them. Although, since it's interesting to think about, why did you choose these particular names?

 

[CzeCze]

What am I [MENTION=8595]Zang[/MENTION]? 13 types! Sounds like a horror movie. I am intrigued.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I guess I am a bit confused by the OP in general. 'The primary fear of psychopaths, sociopaths, and those who indulge'...

That seems to be an odd combination, or am i missing something? I get that INTJ's tend to abhor self-indulgence, lol, but also think that many people self indulge in some fashion (even INTJ's) and wonder why your throwing these into the same category?

I also think placing a psychopath or sociopath into ANY enneagram type would be extremely difficult. Just like placing someone with schizophrenia. The enneagrams point is to classify and categorize fixations and behaviors that revolve around a powerful, largely unconscious emotional response to the loss of contact with the core of the self.

The very biological nature of the sociopath and psychopath would be at odds in understanding how fixation develops through emotional responce of loss of contact with core self, because neurologically they don't have the capacity for emotional responce. Atleast they don't have the capacity for empathy I should say. And perhaps that is where I'm wrong.. that you'd have to have some kind of empathetic component to even emotionally respond hmmm........

Anyhow - Here is an interesting article: http://home.uchicago.edu/decety/publications/Decety_ER2011.pdf

I

Although not everyone in my psychopath and sociopath groups are evil people, I do believe a psychopath would always be a type 11, and a sociopath would always come from the type 12 group.

Psychopaths can't empathize because they can't look into a person.

Sociopaths (particularly 12's with wrath) can gauge whats going on inside others, they just don't care that much about what others are feeling further than what they can find and use to their own advantage, as they're more centered around their own whims. So I guess you could say they lack empathy, but mostly they come across like normal people; unlike the psychopath who come across as cold because they are suffering from a much more obvious disability. Whereas sociopaths (or 12's) merely lack placidity- they have to quickly react to things, quickly answer yes or no, they can't bear to sit in a state of confusion, which is kind of the opposite essence of the 12's shocked mentality.

It seems to me these dispositions (or types) that I've laid out are real Enneagram types. Just because psychopathy has a physical manifestation doesn't negate the personality aspect of the label.

 

[Zangetshumody]

What am I [MENTION=8595]Zang[/MENTION]? 13 types! Sounds like a horror movie. I am intrigued.

If you would come onto vent I would be better able to answer that question, but otherwise you can take an enneagram test (which should be pretty accurate at finding your main type if its 1-9), unless you wanna take a look at the 'full theory diagram' on that linked site and work out what your emotion/base tone is.

http://ge.tt/8947GG7

 

[Zangetshumody]

I've been thinking, perhaps fear isn't one of the more basic tenants in the constitution of an Enneagram type; perhaps its a particular aversion, or hate, that displaces the spontaneous grace we once had as small children. Let me give you a few examples and try it out... I already know the emotional states that each type has an aversion towards, but it will be interesting to work out the word phrase.

7. Rejects being eager/pride --- Overused Virtue: Moderation -becomes-> gluttony
13. Rejects being bored/gluttony --- Overused Virtue: Detachment (from thought) -becomes-> indulgence
5. Rejects being rushed/indulgence --- Overused Virtue: Prudence -becomes-> greed
2. Rejects being anxious/greed --- Overused Virtue: Fortitude -becomes-> pride

3. Rejects being worried/wrath --- Overused Virtue: Placidity -becomes-> devaluation
12. Rejects being confused/devaluation --- Overused Virtue: Charity (acting from the heart) -becomes-> excitability
8. Rejects being shocked/excitability(might not be best word) --- Overused Virtue: Justice -becomes-> devotion
1. Rejects being elated/lust --- Overused Virtue: Valuation -becomes-> wrath

6. Rejects being shy/sloth --- Overused Virtue: Sensibility -becomes-> misstrust
11. Rejects being relieved/mistrust --- Overused Virtue: Temperance -becomes-> apathy
4. Rejects being calm/apathy --- Overused Virtue: Hope -becomes-> envy
9. Rejects being sad/envy --- Overused Virtue: Trust -becomes-> sloth

10. No rejection, acceptance

It seems to me that each type, when it denies a particular passion, obviates that passion's corresponding virtue as well; and so the type falls out of grace. In this fallen state the shadow cast by the missing virtue must be compensated for. The next best virtue is over utilized to compensate. As an example, 5's overuse prudence, 4's overuse hope, and so in this way, we can understand the passions to be ill-utilized overextended virtues.

Another point probably worth making is that in each persons' lives they probably were subject to someone else's passion, to which they grew an extreme aversion too, which in turn generated their own Enneagram; as when they denied the "sin" they lost touch with that the corresponding virtue that sin was connected too. So as an example: One's were subject to someone's lust and they despised it, taking on a critical and contemplative outlook on life. 2's were starved for attention at the hands of a 5's greed, leaving them to abhor the contemplative realm (utilized by greed and prudence) in exchange for the emotional field on which they plan to garner support. 3's were exposed to very critical attacks (or wrath), forcing them to deject their own judgement faculty, to instead rely on the evaluation of the audience. etc.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

I hate cheese and spinach, what's my number zang?

 

[xisnotx]

[MENTION=8595]Zang[/MENTION] isn't using the terms "sociopath" and "psychopath" in the medical sense, nor are all 11s and 12s actually deranged individuals. These are just labels to describe the groups until he (or someone else) can find better names for them. Although, since it's interesting to think about, why did you choose these particular names?

If this is the case then better labels should be thought of since I can relate to a lot of the op but still do not appreciate being labeled in what could conceivably be a negative way, especially by those who wouldn't take the time to read the specific definitions as they apply in this context.

Also, I find that I am constantly trying to defend the way I think, my thought patterns, to myself and others. "Theories" like these don't help...

 

[CzeCze]

I'm normally a 7w6 [MENTION=11238]Mkenya[/MENTION] so in your revised system what would I be?

 

[Zangetshumody]

If this is the case then better labels should be thought of since I can relate to a lot of the op but still do not appreciate being labeled in what could conceivably be a negative way, especially by those who wouldn't take the time to read the specific definitions as they apply in this context.

Also, I find that I am constantly trying to defend the way I think, my thought patterns, to myself and others. "Theories" like these don't help...

All the enneagram types are negative. I do also think that the sociopath label is valid, as all the 12's I know cannot commit or form a long term attachment to people, not being able to get past their personal considerations. Although I don't agree with all the definitional elements you can find some places, they are approximately true, and can be related to behavior I have seen in the 12's I know. I guess the only thing that needs to be made clear is that neither psychopaths or sociopaths are predisposed towards inflicting pain, they just possess temperaments which would make it more possible for them tolerate suffering in others, and therefore develop harmful behaviors; its a necessary condition not a sufficient one.

 

[Zangetshumody]

I'm normally a 7w6 [MENTION=11238]Mkenya[/MENTION] so in your revised system what would I be?

If your main type is really 7, and your not a miss typed 13 (because your test didn't have that option), then you would either be a 7 with greed (and have a silly tone), or a bored 7 (with just gluttony). These tones (silly and bored), are not emotions, or necessarily behavior, with 7's you can clearly hear the energy tone in the voice.

Some additional info on 7's in my system:
7 rejects pride and eagerness (the virtue of which is fortitude); silly 7's might seem eager, but this is just the added anxiousness or cerebration (which generated through the rejection of detachment [detachment from thought] and the overuse of prudence, which amounts to a kind of contemplative relativism [or greed]) being added to the extreme form of moderation (the shadow of which is known as gluttony).

So 7's are a type that has been exposed to the eagerness of a 2, and has been put off fortitude, so they reject their own fortitude and turn moderation aberrant (into gluttony) and 7's with greed have also been exposed to too much detachment (or compulsion) and come to resent it within themselves... (well the origin might be a more complex arrangement, but this is the current model I'm working with).

 

[CzeCze]

If your main type is really 7, and your not a miss typed 13 (because your test didn't have that option), then you would either be a 7 with greed (and have a silly tone), or a bored 7 (with just gluttony). These tones (silly and bored), are not emotions, or necessarily behavior, with 7's you can clearly hear the energy tone in the voice.

Some additional info on 7's in my system:
7 rejects pride and eagerness (the virtue of which is fortitude); silly 7's might seem eager, but this is just the added anxiousness or cerebration being added to the extreme form of moderation (the shadow of which is known as gluttony). So 7's are a type that has been exposed to the eagerness of a 2, and has been put off fortitude, so they reject their own fortitude and turn moderation aberrant (into gluttony).

Ahh, nice, thanks I'll ponder this.

Also whoops, I mentioned Mkenya instead of you Zang in my post.