[Traditional Enneagram] The new and improved Enneagram! From the sponge and evan.

[Lady_X]

My my, aren't you a voracious reader?

Go digging through this collection.
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/mbti-tm-enneagram-other-personality-matrices/3094-big-ol-bowl-enneagram.html

thanks...sarcasm and all.

 

[Erudur]

"suppressive/turbulent > controlled
anticipating/pursuing > avoiding"

It seems unlikely to me, although I may be wrong, that you really have a tie for first on both variables. Suppressive and turbulent are quite different, as are anticipating and pursuing. Could you maybe give a little more information as to why you think you're tied on these traits?

The reason I'm not responding to you feeling like a 1 or an 8 is that in this system, the numbers literally don't mean anything more than the intersection of the two variables. If you are 8-like, it means you are pursuing/turbulent-like. If you are 1-like, it means you are anticipating/suppressive-like. But if you really were tied in both variables, you would be just as 3-like and just as 6-like as 1-like and 8-like.

When using the numbers 1 and 8, I used them as shorthand for my limited understanding of the archetypal descriptions. The "tie", if there is one, between variables is probably not that I am between the two, but that I spent enough time with one or the other, that I don't see one as a stronger preference.

In MBTI, I have distinct preferences for I over E, N over S, slight preferences for T over F, and J over P. And I feel those preferences pretty distinctly. In function I definitely prefer Ni to the rest.

I don't have a strong enough feel for the exact application of these terms to feel so distinct with this enneagram model.

Interestingly, I took two tests on Magic's link with the following added ambiguity:

typescore type behavior motivation
1 45 I must be perfect and good to be happy.
5 40 I must be knowledgable and independent to be happy.
8 38 I must be strong and in control to be happy.
9 35 I must be peaceful and easy to get along with to be happy.
2 32 I must be helpful and caring to be happy.
7 30 I must be high and entertained to be happy.
6 29 I must be secure and safe to be happy.
3 27 I must be impressive and attractive to be happy.
4 19 I must avoid painful feelings to be happy.

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Type 7 Type 8 Type 9
1 -2 6 0 4 -4 -5 3 -3

 

[tetraphobia]

this 're-do' of the enneagram shows you lack an understanding of the symbol itself.

 

[garbage]

this 're-do' of the enneagram shows you lack an understanding of the symbol itself.

The standard "Enneagram of personality" typing system uses the enneagram symbol as a tool.. this version doesn't. The name "Enneagram" is kept as shorthand to represent the personality system, but it has nothing to do with the symbol like the original does.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

this 're-do' of the enneagram shows you lack an understanding of the symbol itself.

The symbol is superfluous and non-functional, and all aspects that adhered to it were illogical. But then, greed summed it up pretty well anyhow.

I do admit that the change makes using the name "enneagram" a little strange, but right now it's a carry over reference. If we changed the name right off the bat, than no one would even realize we were talking about a change based on the Enneagram.

I guess we can stick to the name "poriferancegram". Gram means line or lines, so what number is poriferance exactly?

 

[Frank]

I love the way you Ti dominants can create your own systems of theory. Most of the attempts I have seen on here have been pretty impressive. Brilliant work fellas.

 

[maliafee]

I love the new system Poriferan. I read it all... but to be honest I couldn't pay attention the whole time try as I might, because my brain is not thereotical-y enough.

I do think the old Enneagram system was quite illogical.

Can you help me figure out what I am, PLEASE, PLEASE, brilliant NT?

To start with I'm a 6. What do I do to figure out what else?!

The symbol is superfluous and non-functional, and all aspects that adhered to it were illogical. But then, greed summed it up pretty well anyhow.

I do admit that the change makes using the name "enneagram" a little strange, but right now it's a carry over reference. If we changed the name right off the bat, than no one would even realize we were talking about a change based on the Enneagram.

I guess we can stick to the name "poriferancegram". Gram means line or lines, so what number is poriferance exactly?

 

[TaylorS]

Interesting! According to this then I would be a 1w2w5 I-P-S

Behavioral Stack
Anticipating
Avoiding
Pursuing

Emotional Stack
Suppressing
Controlling
Turbulent

Instinctual Stack
Intimate
Preservational
Social

 

[Ozz]

I love the way you Ti dominants can create your own systems of theory. Most of the attempts I have seen on here have been pretty impressive. Brilliant work fellas.

Agree 100%. I enjoy reading theories from INTP and learning about them as well. They are quite the eye opener.

 

[Orangey]

According to this system I am a 5w4w1 P-I-S.

 

[phthalocyanine]

do the results of a test like this provide any helpful information with determining wings?

i read the entire OP but seem to need some help figuring mine out.

 

[BlackCat]

Well not for me, since in traditional enneagram I'm a 9w8 and I identify with that type very strongly.

But for enneagram tests I'd say that it would be a decent indicator, it would tell you what types you are close to and what you aren't, so in this system it would better indicate your type's wings. And I still don't understand their wing system very much either, it's difficult to grasp.

And don't use that test, it's garbage.

 

[phthalocyanine]

how about the ones on similarminds?

 

[Magic Poriferan]

As far as this system goes, no currently existing test might help you with the wings. However, I can still think of ways that it might be possible.

I don't honesty remember the sort of questions that the similarminds test asked, so I don't recall how good it was. What I do know is that you should just ignore what it says about your variant because it goes about that all wrong.

 

[SciVo]

Hokay. I think I got it figured out. 9-2-4 sp/so is my current best guess in your enneagram-like system, but I only got through page 1 of the thread. I'll read the rest later.

 

[phthalocyanine]

hm..thanks blackcat & poriferan for the feedback.

i always test as a 4 and either as self-preservational or social.

i know i gravitate toward point 1 lot, maybe also to 9, 5, 7, and 6.

i'll have another look and see what i come up with.

 

[SciVo]

The enneagram types are based on nine different passions, but there are already at least four ways to group the types into 3 x 3 categories. Your variables are nothing new, only your names are. Your first variable is normally called the Hornevian Groups, your second the Harmonic Groups. Additionally there are the Triads, which include the Heart Triade (2,3,4), the Head Triad (5,6,7) and the Instinctive Triad (8,91), and the Dominant Affect Groups, which include the Attachment-Based Group (3,6,9), the Frustration-Based Group (1,4,7) and the Rejection-Based Group (2,5,8).


Each type shares values and commonalities with every other type. You can only cut out types if you reject the two other categories I´m talking about. Nines and Eights both belong to the Instinctive Triad.

You know, I think that I'd rather include those other two triads and throw out the instinctual variants. I don't see what the IVs add. For example, how would you construct a test that would reliably distinguish between avoidant (or the Hornevian equivalent) and sp? Whereas at a glance, it looks like adding the heart/head/instinctive triads and the dominant affect groups would make every type/wing1/wing2 combination possible with only four variables, and I think that's pretty cool.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

You know, I think that I'd rather include those other two triads and throw out the instinctual variants. I don't see what the IVs add. For example, how would you construct a test that would reliably distinguish between avoidant (or the Hornevian equivalent) and sp?

I don't really see how avoidance as I have defined it and self-preservation overlap.

My biggest dissatisfaction with the system so far is that I feel the behavior trait definitions are too vague and lacking in orientation. But even when accounting for that, I don't know how they'd be indistinguishable from any given instinct.

 

[SciVo]

Thank you for the awesome work you did in putting this thread together.
I think it should be nominated for the "Haight Classics".

As far as the first variable, I'm pretty sure I do the Avoidant the most.

I don't think I understand the second variable well enough yet.
I do some of each and I can't tell them apart enough to differentiate.

Can you help me?

I can only explain my personal perspective. I'm primarily Avoidant/Controlling. In early adolescence, I practiced expressions in the mirror until I was confident that I knew exactly what each one felt like from the inside, and that I could produce any emotional affect in a snap. I have such a flexible, expressive face that some people can still read the flickers of my initial reactions before I get a chance to control them, but I get better at it every year.

My control is so important to me that I only regress to Turbulent and helplessly spew forth my feelings when under extraordinary stress, whereas I advance to Anticipating when I'm at my most mindfully present. I'm suspicious of being Pursuing, since that much excitement blinds my social perceptiveness and ability to anticipate, so that never ends well. Even worse, I find the very idea of being Suppressive loathsome, as that would separate me from my core self, making me fundamentally inauthentic -- but of course Fi is my primary cognitive process, so that's just me, not a general rule.

I hope that seeing how it looks from a Controlling perspective helps you.

I don't really see how avoidance as I have defined it and self-preservation overlap.

My biggest dissatisfaction with the system so far is that I feel the behavior trait definitions are too vague and lacking in orientation. But even when accounting for that, I don't know how they'd be indistinguishable from any given instinct.

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??

ETA: I don't expect an answer tonight. I'd like to think that those are deep questions, so I'd rather you slept on them. Though if you're on the East Coast, I probably didn't need to say that.

 

[Lexan]

Well...

Hey,

I didn't really read much into this system you've come up with, Magic Periferan, but I'm going to say now that I'm someone who believes in The Enneagram, wings and all (except I don't believe in the trifix, that's one theory that has never made sense to me). It's strange, because The Enneagram would seem far more superficial and shallow from a distance, but it's been of far more use to me than MBTI ever was. Originally I wasn't sure whether I was a 4 or a 5, then realized after more research that I was a 4w5. I think 4s often identify their type and wing more immediately than other types, due to a more profound desire to understand the self. This is why a lot of fours are drawn to The Enneagram - it's purpose is for self improvement and understanding. Even though I pretty much fully believe in the wing theory (and I believe that, even though one wing may be more predominant, both wings are highly influential to a personality) , I don't think it's the most important aspect of the system. The Instinctual Variants are probably more important, as they indicate the area/s of imbalance. The use of The Enneagram symbol in the personality system is important, because the geometric shape indicates the directions of integration and disintegration for each type. This is actually vital for the initial purpose of The Enneagram - it is a tool for personal growth, liberation and transformation. By observing the security/stress (or integration/disintegration) points, one may be obliged to understand the areas in which one should strive to improve, and where one falls short, what one's weaknesses are. By identifying these, one can observe when one being detrimental to oneself and others - which may not have been observed previously. Basically, it's all about developing awareness.

The Enneagram is hardly a scientific or proven theory, but it does follow a logic, and it has seemed to be profoundly true as far as most of my experiences are concerned. The fact that a lot of people here can't decipher their type according to the original system is strange to me, because the truth of The Enneagram in regards to the human condition became obvious soon after I discovered it. Can't say the same for any other personality system I've come across. It's a shame that some people can't see that, but I can say that thankfully one doesn't need The Enneagram to grow as a person. Best of luck to all of you.