User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 61

  1. #41
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    I know precisely why it's structured the way it is.

    I've been thinking about making a thread on it.
    Please do.

  2. #42
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Whee, the "scientifically valid" issue again.

    Look, a typology is very simple. It works like this:
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who don't.
    That's a typology. It's a very simple typology, with just 10 classifications. Even if you don't know what the other "8" classifications are, you probably have typed yourself correctly. It is not, however, a very useful typology.

    A typology is more like a kind of math than a kind of science. Mathematical statements don't have to be scientifically true, and scientific truths don't have to be able to be described by a particular kind of math. Math is a language that we use to juggle abstract concepts. The concepts are "about" the world, but they are just models/abstractions of what is really in the world. That said, math is much more sophisticated than typology, but the parallel holds.

    I've brought up Gödel, Escher, Bach before. The theme of the book is about how far we can go to use abstract concepts to describe the real world, touching very strongly on themes of self-reference. Gödel's completeness theorem says, very roughly, that no useful abstract description of the world can ever be complete. Simple descriptions can be complete, but they aren't useful. Useful descriptions can be very advanced, but they always end up running into problems - they either run into contradictions, or they run into large areas of truth that cannot be properly described/proved.

    Math is a very complete abstract system that can describe much of what we know about the world. It isn't too useful at describing people or how people interact.



    Personality typologies suffer from a very different issue: they're remarkably useful for describing complex things like people, but they are notoriously incomplete.

    Scientifically valid?! You want scientifically f-cking valid? Then stop trying to describe subjective aspects of humanity, such as personality. There is no system capable of being "scientifically valid" about that.

    Thus, we are stuck with trying to come up with a language to talk about personality. That language usually hinges upon a typology. MBTI is one such language, which when combined with (modern post-Jung) notions of Jungian functions, helps us talk about how people process things with their minds. The proper question isn't "are the types real" or "are the functions real". The proper question is, "What are we really talking about?"

    Enneagram is a different typology, with a different basis. It still provides a language to talk about personality, but the elemental "words" of that language are different, with different underlying core concepts. Again, the proper question isn't about what's real or what's scientifically valid, the proper question is what are those underlying core concepts.

    The "scientific" personality systems, like the big 5, are more like the "10 types of people in the world typology", easy to apply, but mostly useless. The scientific accuracy is gained at the expense of anything resembling insights into human nature.

    Just as MBTI "Thinkers" eventually need to learn to "Feel", those who strongly value a "scientific" approach in general need to learn that such paradigms tend to fail when handling subjective human matters.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  3. #43
    Senior Member Noon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    806

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    Z have you come across a singular origin source on why it is structured that way? I've read a number of differing accounts and have yet to see any strong indication of a foundational basis for it, but admittedly I haven't gone far with the research.
    This wasn't directed at me (sorry) but I have a theory on its structure - albeit more like a reconstruction of its dubious-by-common standards origin. I've illustrated it so that it flows better - and like to try & type people by asking which they identify with most - but since it's got a lot to do with sephirot & there's already a commotion about the scientific standard, it'll likely look crazy to a lot of people anyway. In any case this is why scientific validation of the enneagram is not a very high concern of mine.

  4. #44
    Just a note... LittleV's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Socionics
    IEI
    Posts
    276

    Default

    The Big Five has academic support... but we know that there are more than five main traits. Regardless, they simply encompass hundreds of other traits that different types of researchers get to work with and synthesize (we can meaningfully map things ourselves, to ourselves, because science doesn't allow for biased papers to be published). For instance, they could be used to diagnose personality disorders (extreme scores), depict faces, etc. There are neural bases to traits, while patterns may depend on where a person may lie on a continuum.

    (DeYoung et al., 2010)
    Extraversion: medial orbitofrontal cortex, nucleus acumbens, amygdala
    Neuroticism: amygdala, anterior and mid-cingulate cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, hippocampus
    Agreeableness: superior temporal sulcus, temporoparietal junction, posterior cingulate cortex
    Conscientiousness: dorsalateral/ventrolateral prefrontal cortex

    Socionics is one of the more complex of the typologies... and the Enneagram the most fluid. People often assume that the MBTI is bashed in the scientific community... but that isn't necessarily true; there are a decent amount of papers being published on it... including one by Finch (2013) presenting its utility for one's (subjective) search for meaning. There's purpose in most typologies; the Big Five is plainly not at the forefront for finding personal essence, but instrumental in many other, relevant domains.

  5. #45
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Excellent post @uumlau

    Quote Originally Posted by Noon View Post
    This wasn't directed at me (sorry) but I have a theory on its structure - albeit more like a reconstruction of its dubious-by-common standards origin. I've illustrated it so that it flows better - and like to try & type people by asking which they identify with most - but since it's got a lot to do with sephirot & there's already a commotion about the scientific standard, it'll likely look crazy to a lot of people anyway. In any case this is why scientific validation of the enneagram is not a very high concern of mine.
    I've read about connection with the sephirot; it's fascinating. I don't know as much about that system as I would like to. Maybe if Z makes his thread on the origin of it you could share your illustrations?

    IMO the Big Five... ughh admittedly it's the most "scientifically valid" but I just don't like it because it has "better" and "worse" weighing to it (or mentally healthier/unhealthier), which is fine in a medical capacity but they're traits that may not change a ton (and there are well-documented patterns to how they tend to change). I'm not really for any system that tells one person they're crappier and another they're fantastic unless it's actually useful information, and I don't really see the Big Five as a useful tool, especially compared to the Enneagram.

  6. #46
    Entertaining Cracker five sounds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    729 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEE Ne
    Posts
    5,634

    Default

    Which my little pony are you.
    You hem me in -- behind and before;
    you have laid your hand upon me.
    Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
    too lofty for me to attain.

  7. #47
    Junior Member Mindsabre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    12

    Default

    From my observations... maybe that jungian cognitive functions (mbti?). Even then... I am skeptical if any of these have any real validity at all. I do not know.

  8. #48
    metamorphosing Flâneuse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    InFP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp/sx
    Posts
    996

    Default

    I don't know about the most credible, but I find the most useful for me are:
    1. Enneagram - The most brutally honest, and the most revealing.
    2. MBTI - INFP fits me pretty well, especially the descriptions that lean more towards e9-ish (rather than e4-ish) traits. It's little too optimistic and idealized though -- not enough focus on what's wrong with each type and how they can improve.
    3. Socionics - Oddly, I relate to Socionics's Fi description more than that of MBTI, but neither IxFj description fits me that well. INFj is the closest fit, but there are still a lot of differences. I find the Socionics type descriptions focus too much on surface traits and behaviors rather than inner lives/thought processes.

  9. #49
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyyukon View Post
    Said the ENTP 7w8, so
    You know so, just trieing to blend in
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  10. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Posts
    10,093

    Default

    I find myself wavering on which system I find the most valid. Obviously each one has weaknesses and strengths, so it's very hard to say which is the best, or most accurate scientific model.

    I used to think socionics and enneagram were shit compared to MBTI, but I've been questioning that conclusion lately.

    I'd like to find a way to consolidate them into one superior system. That would be daunting, and I'd lose interest halfway through. fuck it

Similar Threads

  1. Which enneagram do you think is the most likely to be a criminal?
    By Evolving Transparency in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 10-25-2014, 05:46 PM
  2. What do you think is the most cowardly action in a fight?
    By godscollie in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 06-11-2012, 06:06 PM
  3. Which types do you think are the most sarcastic?
    By paintmuffin in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 10-13-2009, 05:00 AM
  4. Replies: 60
    Last Post: 03-03-2009, 02:28 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