The new and improved Enneagram! From the sponge and evan.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by dissonance

Either 5 or 9 since you said supressing = controlling.

So if you were S>C>T, you'd be 5>9>1 or 5>1>9.
if you were C>S>T, you'd be 9>5>2 or 9>2>5

Haha... indeed. I made an assumption about that equals sign.

[Usehername]

Thanks guys.


So, when ya gonna write lengthy descriptions of each of the types and subtypes?

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by Usehername

Thanks guys.

It's my pleasure.
I imagine dissonance feels much the same way.

Originally Posted by Usehername

So, when ya gonna write lengthy descriptions of each of the types and subtypes?

Depending on how far this thing goes, I think a whole website unto itself might be in order, but I don't want to jump the gun. I'd rather figure out a few more of the general dynamics of the system before I go on about type descriptions.

There are a lot of things to describe, though. If you factor in the instincts there are 27 types without including any stackings. I think it would also be interesting to describe the effects of the different stackings for the behavioral and emotional variables.

One thing I would never consider doing, though, is writing a description for every possible combination with all factors included. That would be 216 types, which is not only way too much to write about, but some of them would be so trivially different that it wouldn't be worth writing about. I think one of the valuable things about a well structure system is that you don't need to write a description for every single permutation. A person should be able to intuitively understand them based on the component and processes of the system.

[bluebell]

Originally Posted by 6sticks

Pretty interesting, I consistently scored three numbers which made no sense in the regular enneagram but fit with the Porifenancegram 4000.

Perfect.

MagicP, you write very well and clearly. Thanks - an enjoyable read.

I'm sleep deprived so hopefully I've followed your instructions correctly:

avoidant > anticipating > pursuing
suppressive > turbulent > controlling

P > I > S

I think (but I'm not sure) I'm a 5 on Enneagram.

[Evan]

Originally Posted by bluebell

avoidant > anticipating > pursuing
suppressive > turbulent > controlling

P > I > S

I think (but I'm not sure) I'm a 5 on Enneagram.

5/1/4 or 5/4/1 according to our system (you have to decide whether you're closer to avoidant/turbulent(4) or anticipating/suppressive(1)). Look at the 5x5 table magic posted on the first page. You should be able to figure out everything with that.

[01011010]

This is very interesting, MP.

[Athenian200]

Magic... it looks like I'm either a 4, 5, or 9 in your system. Interesting. I can't seem to figure out my second variable, though.

But it seems to make sense, I think.

[Eric B]

Pretty good.
I still think different types should be stacked according to I, P and S, so that you could be one type in one area, another in another area, and yet another in the last area (or the same in all areas). That would basically match Temperament + Interaction Style + an additional distinction of "intimate" (just like FIRO).

And in the table, shoudn't "Anticipating" be in the middle as the "moderate" renge, with "pursuing" on the right as the opposite extreme of "avoiding"?
Like think of the "object" of the "moving" as being to the right:
<--Avoiding | Anticipating | Pursuing-->

Here's the diagram of how I use this concept for expressing/wanting behavior
http://members.aol.com/etb700/movement.jpg

[Haphazard]

I am so confused about the pursuing/anticipating/avoidant thing.

So, if somebody pursues anything, are they pursuers? What if they avoid anything? What sort of things weigh more heavily? Or is this a general trend? Do things that go in the opposite direction oppose each other?

I don't understand the breakdown.

[Magic Poriferan]

Originally Posted by Eric B

Pretty good.
I still think different types should be stacked according to I, P and S, so that you could be one type in one area, another in another area, and yet another in the last area (or the same in all areas). That would basically match Temperament + Interaction Style + an additional distinction of "intimate" (just like FIRO).

At the moment, I'm still considering various ways that the actual consequqnce of the stack positions can be interpreted. One way is to say that the stacks merely represent a rank priortized by similarity, of how you generally act all the time. Another wat could be that the stacks are a part of a shifting temperament, with each layer representing a different state of mind that is more or less natural to the person. And yes, the third way would be to have each layer of the stack assigned to another specific variable.

Each approach has merits and flaws.

Originally Posted by Eric B

And in the table, shoudn't "Anticipating" be in the middle as the "moderate" renge, with "pursuing" on the right as the opposite extreme of "avoiding"?
Like think of the "object" of the "moving" as being to the right:
<--Avoiding | Anticipating | Pursuing-->

Here's the diagram of how I use this concept for expressing/wanting behavior
http://members.aol.com/etb700/movement.jpg

Well, if we were using three point contiua that would be the case, but we are not in this system. We are using something more to the effect of traingles than lines with three spaces.

It might seem like anticipation is in the middle, especially in terms of the cost benefit/analysis, but I think iit's important to treat it a little more independently than that. Because, for example, someone could be pursuing and then more like avoiding, with anticipation at the bottom. Anticipation doesn't have to be inbetween.