User Tag List

First 71516171819 Last

Results 161 to 170 of 236

  1. #161
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SciVo View Post
    But that's not exactly what I said. I'm talking epistemology, not ontology, since the beingness of the instinctual variants is not enough to construct a useful taxonomy without a way to reliably distinguish between them and the 9 types. To get even more specific, how would you write a test that would distinguish between someone who stays home because their primary instinct is self-protection and their ego is safer inside, and someone who stays home because they judge an unfavorable cost-benefit ratio for going out? Heck, how would you even explain the difference??
    The way to tell the two apart would be based on the fact that they differ in interaction with eachother. A pursuent P-I-S is going to look very different from an avoidant S-I-P. I think the main thing to keep in mind is that none of these qualities stand alone. Even if in theory they would be appear similar on their own, they are never going to be on their own.

    Take a look at the MBTI. Only a crappy test (though there are many) would operate on trying to figure out if you were F vs T, and then S vs N, etc.. in such a manner. Any test that's worth anything is going to ask questions to determine how much you use processes like Fe or Si. It's going to look for the distinct qualities of their interaction.

    As such, the yet unwritten test for this system would likely not try to determine your type in each variable in an isolated fashion. The exact mechanics I do not yet know (obviousy, or I'd have a test), there are a few choices on how to do it. But whatever way it's done, it would be feasible to account for the interaction of two traits. Because the behavior trait is more about a default strategy for how to situate yourself, and the instincts are more about what you particularly want or don't want. There is a distinction to each of the 9 possible combinations of behavior and motive.

    The biggest issue for me in writing a test would actually just be the sheer complexity of accounting for all three variables. That is, also including the affective/mood variable.

    I hope that's somewhat helpful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexan View Post
    Hey,

    [post too long to fully quote]
    My response to your overall post is that I'd be the first to admit that the new system takes something of a sledge hammer to the old one, and those attached to or looking for the old one may not like what they find. The old enneagram was a system, but this all came about as a concern that the Enneagram's logic was not consistent and certainly not valid (that is, it's methods were not pertinent to what it claimed to be determining). This is a general assumption about the enneagram on the part of myself and others. However, for those that the enneagram does describe well, it may seem fine and not worth changing.

    Let me say that the type One descriptions usually do a very good job of describing me. However, things really fell apart for me at the wings and the lines of intergration and disintegration. This lead me to further investigation of how they worked, and I found something I considered dubious at best. So in other words, this project comes about as a result of the incredible inconsistency with which the Enneagram works for people.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  2. #162
    Junior Member Lexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    20

    Default

    My response to your overall post is that I'd be the first to admit that the new system takes something of a sledge hammer to the old one, and those attached to or looking for the old one may not like what they find. The old enneagram was a system, but this all came about as a concern that the Enneagram's logic was not consistent and certainly not valid (that is, it's methods were not pertinent to what it claimed to be determining). This is a general assumption about the enneagram on the part of myself and others. However, for those that the enneagram does describe well, it may seem fine and not worth changing.

    Let me say that the type One descriptions usually do a very good job of describing me. However, things really fell apart for me at the wings and the lines of intergration and disintegration. This lead me to further investigation of how they worked, and I found something I considered dubious at best. So in other words, this project comes about as a result of the incredible inconsistency with which the Enneagram works for people.
    The Enneagram's logic is consistent - it is consistent in that it follows rules according to the geometric shape, the points of integration and disintegration are logically consistent, whether they make sense to the individual interpreting them is a different story. When I first read about The Enneagram I was very sceptical about the points of integration/disintegration - they were the only thing that didn't make sense. But I can see them more clearly now, that I have a strong connection to both types One and Two.

    Out of interest, why exactly do you identify with the type One description? Type One corresponds strongly, almost exclusively, with the J function, usually SJ. Obviously you're strongly identified with INTP - and if you identify with type One I'd say 6w5 might be a good place to look. Especially considering the nature of this thread. That or maybe 5w6. The fact that you wish to 'improve' The Enneagram system may in itself be indicative that you are indeed a type One. I have found that trying to correspond E types with MBTI types often doesn't work. But it's strange that a type One would be an INTP - they are obsessive about practicality, getting things done... INTPs aren't.

  3. #163
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexan View Post
    The Enneagram's logic is consistent - it is consistent in that it follows rules according to the geometric shape, the points of integration and disintegration are logically consistent, whether they make sense to the individual interpreting them is a different story.
    How is it consistent? 1>4>2>8>5>7....9>6>3? Why are there two different groupings? It's a 9 sided figure and there are two groups, one size six and one size three? That's so arbitrary.

    Another arbitrary thing is that each type is defined separately instead of having intersecting variables that determine type. So why 9? At least in this system we give reason for the number 9 (3x3). We also have wings that make sense and are parallel.

  4. #164
    Junior Member Lexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    How is it consistent? 1>4>2>8>5>7....9>6>3? Why are there two different groupings? It's a 9 sided figure and there are two groups, one size six and one size three? That's so arbitrary.

    Another arbitrary thing is that each type is defined separately instead of having intersecting variables that determine type. So why 9? At least in this system we give reason for the number 9 (3x3). We also have wings that make sense and are parallel.
    The 142871... and 3693... groupings are different continuums. These are different sections of The Enneagram. The former is joined together, but not to the latter, which is a seperate continuum. Despite this, there are two other triangles which make up The E aside from the 369, however they are not connected, by lines and therefore don't constitute integration/disintegration points. These are 258 (power seekers) and 147 (ideal seekers), they a 'moving against (confronting) and 'moving away (withdrawing)' respectively, according to the terms Karen Horney devised. The 369 triad is known as the 'approval' triad, seeking affirmation and 'moving towards (embracing)'. It's pretty complicated and I have yet to fully read up on it. I believe you would have read up on the works of Ichazo to get to the bottom of it, assuming you haven't already.

    I'm not an expert on this, I'm learning it all myself, but have you taken a look at these links?

    How the Enneagram Personality System Works

    a short course on the enneagram triads

    http://enneagramtriads.com/Overview_Triad_Symbols.pdf

    Amazon.com: The Enneagram Triads: A Key to Personal and Professional Growth (9781882042166): Dick Wright: Books

    and just for good measure:

    Riso-Hudson Enneagram

    Also, taken from The E institute Discussion Board:

    The 'Centers' -

    Heart: 2 + 3 + 4 = 9
    Head: 5 + 6 + 7 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Gut: 8 + 9 + 1 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9

    The Hornevian Groups -

    Withdrawn: 4 + 5 + 9 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Compliant: 1 + 2 + 6 = 9
    Assertive: 3 + 7 + 8 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9

    The Harmonic Groups

    Competency: 1 + 3 + 5 = 9
    Reactive: 4 + 6 + 8 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Positive Outlook: 7 + 9 + 2 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9

    Primary Types triangle: 3 + 6 + 9 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Secondary Types: 4 + 1 + 7 + 5 + 8 + 2 = 27 // 2 + 7 = 9

    Add the types horizontally across from each other:
    8 + 1
    7 + 2
    6 + 3
    5 + 4

    EDIT:

    I just realized that this is my 9th post! That's creepy, that is, I better head off before I start getting reaally creeped out...

  5. #165
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    It's all so complicated and arbitrary, like I said. I also don't see a way to reason to the system from constituent parts. That's why this system makes me much more comfortable.

    It's not a question of my knowledge of the traditional enneagram. I've read a bunch about it and I just can't buy into it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lexan View Post
    Also, taken from The E institute Discussion Board:

    The 'Centers' -

    Heart: 2 + 3 + 4 = 9
    Head: 5 + 6 + 7 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Gut: 8 + 9 + 1 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Why does that math mean anything?

    The Hornevian Groups -

    Withdrawn: 4 + 5 + 9 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Compliant: 1 + 2 + 6 = 9
    Assertive: 3 + 7 + 8 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    If you notice, that's actually one of the groupings we built this system on.

    The Harmonic Groups

    Competency: 1 + 3 + 5 = 9
    Reactive: 4 + 6 + 8 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Positive Outlook: 7 + 9 + 2 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    And this.

    Primary Types triangle: 3 + 6 + 9 = 18 // 1 + 8 = 9
    Secondary Types: 4 + 1 + 7 + 5 + 8 + 2 = 27 // 2 + 7 = 9

    Add the types horizontally across from each other:
    8 + 1
    7 + 2
    6 + 3
    5 + 4
    Again, why is this math relevant to anything?

  6. #166
    Junior Member Lexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    It's all so complicated and arbitrary, like I said. I also don't see a way to reason to the system from constituent parts. That's why this system makes me much more comfortable.

    It's not a question of my knowledge of the traditional enneagram. I've read a bunch about it and I just can't buy into it.




    Why does that math mean anything?



    If you notice, that's actually one of the groupings we built this system on.



    And this.



    Again, why is this math relevant to anything?
    I just thought that last part was wicked cool.

    That's good that you included the Hornevian and Harmonic groupings in your system, at this time I can't find a parallel between those groupings and The Enneagram geometric figure, aside from the fact that there is one type from each Center - I would agree that for those particular groupings there is no apparent corresponding geometric pattern (that I know of). Will have to look into that...

    If you don't accept The Enneagram's logic, I suppose there is nothing I or any relevant Enneagram literature can do to help that. The links provided merely supply the information needed - The Enneagram's symbol is the basis for the underlying structure of the 'personality' system, and it is very logical and precise. I do think there are some inconsistencies which are sparse and merely inconsistencies because they don't adhere to the structure of the Enneagram shape - perhaps you could explain them in more detail to me?

    The Enneagram is no more arbitrary or inconsistent than the MBTI, which I find far more vague, imprecise and illogical when it comes to the basic structure of the system, and also when it comes to the system working in 'practice', as opposed to just in theory. Understandably, one would think that The Enneagram would surely be more illogical and inaccurate, but it's not. At least, not in my experience. How a geometric figure corresponds so well with human nature is a mystery, but it seems to work. If you do not think so, I don't mind, but I think you are missing out on some very interesting stuff.

  7. #167
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexan View Post
    The Enneagram is no more arbitrary or inconsistent than the MBTI, which I find far more vague, imprecise and illogical when it comes to the basic structure of the system, and also when it comes to the system working in 'practice', as opposed to just in theory. Understandably, one would think that The Enneagram would surely be more illogical and inaccurate, but it's not. At least, not in my experience. How a geometric figure corresponds so well with human nature is a mystery, but it seems to work. If you do not think so, I don't mind, but I think you are missing out on some very interesting stuff.
    I get frustrated with this argument, especially the bolded. It's not like the geometric figure actually has anything to do with human nature, or even the inner workings of the enneagram system. Someone just decided to represent the types in a figure and draw some lines across. I could make some MBTI diagram and it would do the same thing.

    And even if you like the visual representation thing, our system would actually look more symmetric and parallel than the current system.

    As for the so called inconsistency with MBTI, it's only inconsistent if you're stuck between the two ways of understanding it. There's the four dichotomies way (I vs. E, S vs. N, T vs. F, J vs. P), which...well...is just four dichotomies. 2^4 = 16, so that's why there are 16 types. Or there's the functions way, which is more complicated, but basically it boils down to this: there are 8 options for your dominant function, and 2 options for each of those for auxiliaries. 2*8 is 16. Either way, the fact that there are 16 types comes from simple logic.

    With enneagram, the 9 types are all separately defined. There's no multiplying things together to get 9 or anything. It just happens to be 9. The point of our revision is to make 9 actually mean something, namely, the intersection of two variables with three possible values each (3x3 = 9). The variables themselves are the groupings you mentioned earlier. So to type someone in our system, you just have to figure out where they fall in each of those two variables and you're done. Whereas in the normal enneagram system you basically have to look through all 9 types and pick the best fit. Much less efficient that way, and harder to compare the types.

    Additionally, there's the wing system which is in my opinion just silly. Why would 4 and 5 be as close together as 8 and 9? They don't seem equally close to each other whatsoever. And the whole 142857 -- OMG they're the numbers you get in order when you divide any integer by 7 and look at the decimals! It's like...so what? What does 7 have to do with anything? Why two separate groupings? Why don't the arrows all follow the same pattern?

    Our wing system actually makes sense, or is at least consistent with itself. You stay within one grouping and look for your second closest type. Then you do that with your other grouping. Those are your wings. Done. Each possible wing is just as close as each other one.

    Basically our system gets all the good stuff from enneagram (quick typing for example) and throws away the stuff that makes no sense. The types still correspond to what you've learned, we've just provided a shortcut method to getting to them, which on top of being faster actually makes more sense.

  8. #168
    Shaman BlackCat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ESFP
    Enneagram
    9w8 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    7,004

    Default

    Your system basically isn't the true enneagram, since you've made changes to how it works. I prefer the original system myself... the integration and disintegration all make sense, all of the types with wings make sense... yeah. 9w8 makes a lot of sense for my type.

    Your system may as well just be totally separate from it, what about people like me who relate strongly to 9 and 8, or 6 and 7? The positioning and the wings aren't "meaningless", they actually make sense when applied to people.

    I don't even know what my type would be in your system now that I give it another look, since I can't be a 9>8>? of some sort.
    () 9w8-3w4-7w6 tritype.

    sCueI (primary Inquisition)

  9. #169
    Occasional Member Evan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    1
    Posts
    4,223

    Default

    You're right, it's not technically the enneagram anymore.

  10. #170
    Junior Member Lexan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    I get frustrated with this argument, especially the bolded. It's not like the geometric figure actually has anything to do with human nature, or even the inner workings of the enneagram system. Someone just decided to represent the types in a figure and draw some lines across. I could make some MBTI diagram and it would do the same thing.
    What you bolded is not an argument, it is a statement that I made about my own doubts regarding The E, but it's not an argument by any means.

    The figure does represent the underlying patterns that exist with The Enneagram personality theory, and the patterns as defined by the symbol are mainly consistent. I understand your frustration in not being able to correlate the patterns that exist within the system with human nature - it's absolutely unbelievable!!! But there are some seriously accurate correlations and insights going on there, and I've seen it again and again with myself and others.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    And even if you like the visual representation thing, our system would actually look more symmetric and parallel than the current system.

    As for the so called inconsistency with MBTI, it's only inconsistent if you're stuck between the two ways of understanding it. There's the four dichotomies way (I vs. E, S vs. N, T vs. F, J vs. P), which...well...is just four dichotomies. 2^4 = 16, so that's why there are 16 types. Or there's the functions way, which is more complicated, but basically it boils down to this: there are 8 options for your dominant function, and 2 options for each of those for auxiliaries. 2*8 is 16. Either way, the fact that there are 16 types comes from simple logic..
    I think the functions do play an important role with the types, but whether the logic that has been devised is actually accurate to individuals... I am unsure... I've looked through the ordering of the functions as defined by Myers, Beebe, Berens etc, and though I see there is a logic behind this, I am unsure of it's accuracy in regards to defining the human personality; particularly in accurately categorizing individuals with consistency and fluency.

    One who doubts The Enneagram may say the same for its logic - there is no definitive evidence for either system, and there may never be. But you still haven't pointed out any inconsistencies that occur within the geometric figure of The Enneagram, specifically which correspond to inconsistencies that exist with the actual personality system. You say that it's arbitrary how the 1758241... continuum is separate from the 3693... continum, but this is merely what makes up The Enneagram figure, it's a nine sided figure composed of three triangles, however two of these triangles don't intersect at one side, nor should they, as each point should only connect to two other points by means of the lines connecting them. The triangle that does have all lines connecting has to be the one with the point facing the very top, otherwise the figure wouldn't have nine points.

    It's not that I totally dismiss the MBTI, I can see its merit. In my experience, it is probably the best and most accurate personality typing system besides The Enneagram. That is my personal opinion, and only my personal opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
    With enneagram, the 9 types are all separately defined. There's no multiplying things together to get 9 or anything. It just happens to be 9. The point of our revision is to make 9 actually mean something, namely, the intersection of two variables with three possible values each (3x3 = 9). The variables themselves are the groupings you mentioned earlier. So to type someone in our system, you just have to figure out where they fall in each of those two variables and you're done. Whereas in the normal enneagram system you basically have to look through all 9 types and pick the best fit. Much less efficient that way, and harder to compare the types.

    Additionally, there's the wing system which is in my opinion just silly. Why would 4 and 5 be as close together as 8 and 9? They don't seem equally close to each other whatsoever. And the whole 142857 -- OMG they're the numbers you get in order when you divide any integer by 7 and look at the decimals! It's like...so what? What does 7 have to do with anything? Why two separate groupings? Why don't the arrows all follow the same pattern?

    Our wing system actually makes sense, or is at least consistent with itself. You stay within one grouping and look for your second closest type. Then you do that with your other grouping. Those are your wings. Done. Each possible wing is just as close as each other one.

    Basically our system gets all the good stuff from enneagram (quick typing for example) and throws away the stuff that makes no sense. The types still correspond to what you've learned, we've just provided a shortcut method to getting to them, which on top of being faster actually makes more sense.
    Now that I've actually read your system, I can say I think you've done an impressive job in devising it, and I'm still trying to get my head around it. You have indeed created an interesting theory - and I like how you have based it off the Hornevian and Harmonic groupings, as well as the Instinctual Variants. According to your system, I think I would be a 4>5>6 S-P-I, considering the following:

    Social > Preservational > Intimate
    Turbulent > Suppressed > Controlling
    Avoiding > Anticipating > Pursuing

    ?



    However, this is inconsistent with my understanding of how the types are present within me - I think that everyone has each of the nine 'drives' within them, it's just that one seems to take the lead as a strategy for coping with life. For me, I feel that Six and Eight are the drives which are least dominant, and that my wings (Three, Five) are the second most dominant besides Four. While the wings merely add flavour and behavioural characteristics to the personality, the points of integration/disintegration constitute the subsequent 'movement' that the personality makes, for better or worse. For example, in my 'movement' to One, I strive to improve myself and my environment for the sake of purity and rightness, I overcome my self absorption and self consciousness that results from my fear of defectiveness by aiming for what is objectively right for both myself and others. However, in the move to Two, I will overestimate my need to be loved by others, my subjectivity in regard to my perception of others will increase, and my ego will become inflated with illusions of being more important to others than I actually am.

    I find the original system to be uncannily accurate, and this system you've created is not The Enneagram as the title would imply. 'Enneagram' contains 'ennea', which means nine, and 'gram', which means graph. Though you've used knowledge from the original system, it is not The Enneagram and further comparison would be detrimental to our perception of both systems. Aside from the fact that you've used information from the original, they are different systems which follow different logic.

    So, if I can't convince you when it comes to The Enneagram, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
    'We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give' - Winston Churchill

Similar Threads

  1. Check out this new and interesting view on the N/S dichotonomy
    By Kensei in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-07-2015, 03:42 PM
  2. THE COMPLETE TYPE GROUPING ANALYSIS: By The Sponge.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-30-2010, 02:31 AM
  3. Type Me (New and Improved With Marmite Flavour!)
    By Tigerlily in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 240
    Last Post: 07-25-2008, 12:46 AM

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