User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 41

  1. #31
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Researcher View Post
    Yes, kind of.... (But maybe I just don't know it well enough.)

    I would advise you to not underestimate the enneagram's potential:
    The original system was lacking to say the least. And did not come close to viable as a typological system until Katherine Fauvre tapped it's potential, who has successfully broke down the descriptions from vague characters archetypes to human attitudes, evolving enneagram into the system we now call tritype. In case by case experimentation, mixing sending people to reasonable tritype descriptions and deliberately misleading ones to others (even close ones), it has so far shows itself to be completely immune to the Forer effect - every description that isn't your own contains enough indication to break the need to identify with it - something none of the Jungian inspired typology systems can claim to do. Not quite having the massive room for metaphorical interpretation that Jungian functions deliver, it even has the potential to be the first system to pass the blind test.

    The core axiom is that people gravitate towards fixed attitudes in the ways of deal with shame (2/3/4), anxiety (5/6/7) & anger (8/9/1), and developing defense mechanisms to deal with them. No one person can be defined by only one of those, but those defense mechanisms interact in certain ways that result in common attitudes. Unlike traditional MBTI or socionics, which deny the existence of certain function ordering, there is currently no assumption about which combinations might not be possible beyond that basic separation of heart head and gut types. Unfortunately, that means a fully flashed out version combining a tri-type of enneagram's with individual wings in a specific order and an instinctual variant would require 7,776 type profiles, and while Katherine gives a bit of a attention to the subtle differences in tritype ordering, someone taking the full scope of the endeavor has yet to have happened.

  2. #32
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    bad
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    I would advise you to not underestimate the enneagram's potential:
    The original system was lacking to say the least. And did not come close to viable as a typological system until Katherine Fauvre tapped it's potential, who has successfully broke down the descriptions from vague characters archetypes to human attitudes, evolving enneagram into the system we now call tritype. In case by case experimentation, mixing sending people to reasonable tritype descriptions and deliberately misleading ones to others (even close ones), it has so far shows itself to be completely immune to the Forer effect - every description that isn't your own contains enough indication to break the need to identify with it - something none of the Jungian inspired typology systems can claim to do. Not quite having the massive room for metaphorical interpretation that Jungian functions deliver, it even has the potential to be the first system to pass the blind test.

    The core axiom is that people gravitate towards fixed attitudes in the ways of deal with shame (2/3/4), anxiety (5/6/7) & anger (8/9/1), and developing defense mechanisms to deal with them. No one person can be defined by only one of those, but those defense mechanisms interact in certain ways that result in common attitudes. Unlike traditional MBTI or socionics, which deny the existence of certain function ordering, there is currently no assumption about which combinations might not be possible beyond that basic separation of heart head and gut types. Unfortunately, that means a fully flashed out version combining a tri-type of enneagram's with individual wings in a specific order and an instinctual variant would require 7,776 type profiles, and while Katherine gives a bit of a attention to the subtle differences in tritype ordering, someone taking the full scope of the endeavor has yet to have happened.
    Thanks for your contribution, I have roughly browsed some random enneagram books & articles 5 years ago, but gave up back then, because they seemed to contradict each other. So Gurdjieff never really defined it well enough? And then it got out of hand until Katherine Fauvre or something, are you basically saying that?

    I have been pondering about how I would do a uniform system of 3x3=9 myself (from scratch, as if no one did it before me), but I would miss the direct shadow/opposite, that a binary/duality system such as the 8 functions clearly exhibit (which a 3x3-system most probably doesn't because the opposite will most probably in between the other 2 out of the 3 ). I gave up on it mainly for this reason, as I see the shadow/opposite as something profound. The only way you could have a binary opposite/shadow in a 3x3 system is if each of the tri's has the 3rd as the middle-of-the-axis of the other 2 extremes, or at least 1 out of 9 would be the middle/void of the remaining 8. Otherwise it cannot be geometrically uniform and have a shadow/opposite in its system of 9 points....

    But maybe its not supposed to have a binary opposite within its 9: It might be the exact power of the enneagram "that it doesn't have an exact shadow function", as this stops the mistyping based on shadow. For example "the problem that someone is leaving trails on the Fe/Ti axis but you don't know which side", you would't have such problem in a 3x3 system as there is no binary opposite/shadow in the 9 points (if none of them is middle). But that is only ideally, as you could also mistakenly take the other side here as wel, as in the middle of the other 2. Same problem? Actually even more hidden for beginners or the non-visualisation-talented, thus bigger problem?

    I don't know anything about Katherine Fauvre, did she write just one main book that I should read if I want to re-try the enneagram? Or is there more of her books one should read to get the idea, or from any author? Can you point out the best books and chapters that describe the mechanics/clockwork/geometry of the enneagram in the most technical way? (e.g. not the feel-good or self-help chapters)

    And what is your opinion of possibilities to convert Enneagram to/from Jung/MBTI .... Are they different maps of the same territory (My intuition tells me that they are supposed to be) or did one (or both) of them forget a part of the territory that the other lacks?

  3. #33
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Researcher View Post
    Thanks for your contribution, I have roughly browsed some random enneagram books & articles 5 years ago, but gave up back then, because they seemed to contradict each other. So Gurdjieff never really defined it well enough? And then it got out of hand until Katherine Fauvre or something, are you basically saying that?
    Grdijeff's enneagram might be useful if you are intent on writing fiction for children and want caricatures archetypes of simple characters, and the enneagram institute reduces it further. Katherine's work is clearly inspired by Gurdjieff's enneagram, but can successfully apply to human beings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Researcher View Post
    I don't know anything about Katherine Fauvre, did she write just one main book that I should read if I want to re-try the enneagram? Or is there more of her books one should read to get the idea, or from any author?
    She has a few books but only one focusing on the topic of tritype. There is an extensive list summarizing references and comparison points she has made as type profiles in this thread, including a few video's leaked from her DVD's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Researcher View Post
    I have been pondering about how I would do a uniform system of 3x3=9 myself (from scratch, as if no one did it before me), but I would miss the direct shadow/opposite, that a binary/duality system such as the 8 functions clearly exhibit (which a 3x3-system most probably doesn't because the opposite will most probably in between the other 2 out of the 3 ). I gave up on it mainly for this reason, as I see the shadow/opposite as something profound. The only way you could have a binary opposite/shadow in a 3x3 system is if each of the tri's has the 3rd as the middle-of-the-axis of the other 2 extremes, or at least 1 out of 9 would be the middle/void of the remaining 8. Otherwise it cannot be geometrically uniform and have a shadow/opposite in its system of 9 points....
    Conflicting attributes don't require binaries, just states that can't co-exist, for instance one particularly elegant interpretation of enneagram is that it results from 3 attitudes we can have towards negative: fight, fight & fixation. Notice that each of those can be set as a binary - you can't run and stay to fight, you can't dodge from it and embrace it, and if you'd embrace it you wouldn't be fighting it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Researcher View Post
    And what is your opinion of possibilities to convert Enneagram to/from Jung/MBTI .... Are they different maps of the same territory (My intuition tells me that they are supposed to be) or did one (or both) of them forget a part of the territory that the other lacks?
    The mental characterics aren't the same ones, enneagram focuses on motivations and MBTI on information processing, but some combinations clearly cohabit the same minds at greater frequency then others. INTPs that are anything but e5s (or have a 5 head fix in tritype terms) are extremely rare, the few who aren't usually have it as a wing (6w5), ESTJs are often e8s, ENFPs & ENTPs are often e7s. Many INFPs & INFJs are e4s or e9s, Many ISFJs are e9s or e2s, and many others. Their are several surveys floating around. Here is one of them:


    There is no prefect correlation, but it should be of no surprise that minds that process information in similar ways might develop to deal with common emotional problems in certain ways. For instance, an Ne dom might be better equipped to evade anxiety by embracing a mindset to seek and create mental stimulation (As an e7 does), followed by Se doms who can do the same using the environment as the medium, while a Ti dom might be more trusting in the categorical imperative as a means to fortify and arm one's self against the impending anxiety with a sense of knowledge and competence (As is the case with e5s), or that Fi and Fe strong users are going to be more self conscious in regards to issues of imagery, identity & shame (dealt with by the heart fixes - 2/3/4). Still, there are INTJ 5s and ENTP 3s, and many other combinations that persist.

  4. #34
    Senior Member Mal12345's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    MBTI
    IxTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ti
    Posts
    13,993

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    No wing types = Lazy chart making.
    "Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
    “Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

  5. #35
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    The numbers don't add up in the vertical, so I'm unsure of where the missing percentages happen to be.

    (INTPs add up to 71% for example; INFJs to 74%; and so on across the nine E types. Are the missing percentages "Don't know"?)

    They don't add up running across either, so I'm not sure why it's set up tabularly to suggest the numbers are related; they should just be separate columns for each MBTI type.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #36
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    The numbers don't add up in the vertical, so I'm unsure of where the missing percentages happen to be.

    (INTPs add up to 71% for example; INFJs to 74%; and so on across the nine E types. Are the missing percentages "Don't knows"?)

    They don't add up running across either, so I'm not sure why it's set up tabularly to suggest the numbers are related; they should just be separate columns for each MBTI type.
    I think you are correct, and the most likely interpretation is that the percentages are related vertically and that the missing percentages are people whose e-types were not given.

    Horizontally the percentages do not add up consistently, and in some cases give more than 100% (much like sports teams in the second half).

  7. #37
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    bad
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    86

    Default

    TO: Jarlaxle. Thanks for all this info, you have planted a seed for me to go and delve into it in my next pause from work. Really nice!

    Can I challenge you on the below? Because I am really into these philosophical things...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Conflicting attributes don't require binaries, just states that can't co-exist, for instance one particularly elegant interpretation of enneagram is that it results from 3 attitudes we can have towards negative: fight, fight & fixation. Notice that each of those can be set as a binary - you can't run and stay to fight, you can't dodge from it and embrace it, and if you'd embrace it you wouldn't be fighting it.
    I assume you mean fixation is to stay in place. Thus you say fixation is totally different than fight or flight, since it is not either flight or fight. So these are supposed to be 3 equal candidates? As in: all opposites between each of these 3 are equal opposites according to you?

    May I philosophically dissect this?

    I find: These 3 are not 3 equal candidates.
    Why? >> Because there is always only 1 middle: the fixation.
    You cannot put fight or flight in the middle, can you? Only fixation is the middle.
    That means there is only 2 extremes: fight & flight. Only the extremes would be polar opposites.
    The middle is different from both, yes, but more like 90 degrees, not 180 degrees different.
    So these are not 3 equal opposites.
    You actually described a simple binary with a middle: -1 > 0 > +1

    More proof: real opposites cancel each other out.
    the mix of fight + flight = null (fixation), that means they cancel each other out, thus they are true opposites.
    but fixation + fight = 50% fight (still fight, e.g not cancelled out, not an opposite)
    and fixation + flight = 50% flight (still flight, e.g. not cancelled out, not an opposite)

    I am not saying its impossible yet, but you need a different example, of 3 uniformly spread points without an obvious middle. Do you know one? (be careful that you are not choosing a quad/4-way opposite model, forgetting no.4 and just calling it a trinary model, in that case I will easily point out the forgotten 4th to you, by doing some simple adding math like above. ).

  8. #38
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    834

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Researcher View Post
    I find: These 3 are not 3 equal candidates.
    Why? >> Because there is always only 1 middle: the fixation.
    You cannot put fight or flight in the middle, can you? Only fixation is the middle.
    You could argue that fighting combines the choice to stand your ground (fixation) and the unwillingness to accept the intruding object (flight), meaning that fighting would be in the middle. Or you could argue that flight flight combines the proactive approach of fighting with the self preservation of fixation. You could - as you did - super impose them on a line to create "middle" in every direction depending on which factor you create the spectrum by, and in all 3 cases you would be creating a framework which misses the essential motive and attitude behind whichever behavior you've super imposed on the middle.


    One of the biggest problems of function-MBTI is that it super imposes a dictohomy between mental characteristics which don't necessarily conflict (I.E. Si isn't defined as the absence of Se or vise verse, instead we assume that Si and Se do not co exist side by side, yet we have little to no evidence to support it), while here they inherently do - each attitude requires the absence of the two others in order to exist itself. The only situation that outright demands a binary is a yes/no status for the existence of a characteristic in which the opposite would be defined as the absence of the characteristic you're looking for, or a spectrum in which only one variable is accounted for, and neither systems lend themselves towards that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    The numbers don't add up in the vertical, so I'm unsure of where the missing percentages happen to be.

    (INTPs add up to 71% for example; INFJs to 74%; and so on across the nine E types. Are the missing percentages "Don't know"?)

    They don't add up running across either, so I'm not sure why it's set up tabularly to suggest the numbers are related; they should just be separate columns for each MBTI type.
    Not sure - I looked for MBTI enneagram correlation infographics on Google images and noticed this one came from typoC.

  9. #39
    Vaguely Precise Seymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/so
    Posts
    1,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    You could argue that fighting combines the choice to stand your ground (fixation) and the unwillingness to accept the intruding object (flight), meaning that fighting would be in the middle. Or you could argue that flight flight combines the proactive approach of fighting with the self preservation of fixation. You could - as you did - super impose them on a line to create "middle" in every direction depending on which factor you create the spectrum by, and in all 3 cases you would be creating a framework which misses the essential motive and attitude behind whichever behavior you've super imposed on the middle.
    Dan Siegel (of The Developing Mind fame) has been doing some enneagram related research, and things the the enneagram is perhaps a combination of a predominate negative emotion (fear, anger, or sadness), combined with a direction of attention (inner, outer, or inner/outer). I'm not sure that's any more satisfying, really, but he is trying to come at things from a skeptical position of a researcher who is not already invested in the enneagram. So I think it's all to the good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    One of the biggest problems of function-MBTI is that it super imposes a dictohomy between mental characteristics which don't necessarily conflict (I.E. Si isn't defined as the absence of Se or vise verse, instead we assume that Si and Se do not co exist side by side, yet we have little to no evidence to support it), while here they inherently do - each attitude requires the absence of the two others in order to exist itself. The only situation that outright demands a binary is a yes/no status for the existence of a characteristic in which the opposite would be defined as the absence of the characteristic you're looking for, or a spectrum in which only one variable is accounted for, and neither systems lend themselves towards that.
    Actually, if you go back to the dichotomies and treat them as continuous traits, then the "functions" break down into the effects of combinations of preference. So what is called Si is the combinatorial effects of S+J (and perhaps a little bit of introversion), and what's called Se is the combinatorial effects of S+P (and perhaps a little bit of extraversion). So, strongly preferring J and P at the same time doesn't make much sense, since it requires being at two points on the same scale at once. It's like saying "I'd like to be methodical and structured with a clear goal in mind while exploratively attending to whatever seems best at the time and allowing the goal to arise out of the process." So displaying the qualities of Se + Si at the same time doesn't make a lot of sense.

    Taken to extremes, Judging is really about optimizing the long term and so has little patience for (and places little value in) ephemera. A Judging perspective tends to value what persists over time and prefers to skip over or plow through the moment to moment perturbations. Perceiving, however, is focused on optimizing the present moment, and has little patience for being artificially constrained in ways that ignore the realities of the specific situation. When those qualities are combined with Sensing (for example), it becomes easy to see where the flavor of Se vs Si comes from.

    One can also see where some of the Fe/Fi and Te/Ti frustrations come about. The Je-ers feeling frustrated that the Ji-ers are focusing on things that are too momentary to too specific to be useful, and the Ji-ers frustrated that Je-ers are being imprecise and ignoring the present reality. Fe tends to want predictable people, relationships, and rules of engagement over time, while Fi if happy to (sometimes myopically) try to do what's the best for this person, this relationship, and this interaction that's happening right now.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    Not sure - I looked for MBTI enneagram correlation infographics on Google images and noticed this one came from typoC.
    I recall it was BlackCat who created it. He drew data from both TypoC and PersonalityCafe, I recall. Here's the thread where he introduces it.

  10. #40
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    bad
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jarlaxle View Post
    You could argue that fighting combines the choice to stand your ground (fixation) and the unwillingness to accept the intruding object (flight), meaning that fighting would be in the middle. Or you could argue that flight flight combines the proactive approach of fighting with the self preservation of fixation. You could - as you did - super impose them on a line to create "middle" in every direction depending on which factor you create the spectrum by, and in all 3 cases you would be creating a framework which misses the essential motive and attitude behind whichever behavior you've super imposed on the middle.
    .
    Thanks for the input, appreciated. However, there is something I think you did not see inside your own reasoning:

    You are just rewording them, so they mean something else. Its still the same 3 behind the labels, with 1 middle and 2 extremes.

    Its like you are saying (about -1 / 0 / +1): Imagine 0 is actually -1, and -1 is +1, then +1 would be left as 0 in the middle.

    You have to give me an example where the interpretation/definition of each of the 3 remains constant. Only then will I be convinced

Similar Threads

  1. [Tri] Enneagrams that will try to pimp you
    By draon9 in forum Enneagram
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-21-2016, 06:20 PM
  2. Trying to type my 10-year-old
    By phoenix31 in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-02-2016, 02:08 AM
  3. Replies: 171
    Last Post: 07-21-2013, 07:22 AM
  4. 10 year old refuses to salute the flag...
    By kyuuei in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 132
    Last Post: 12-02-2009, 08:06 PM
  5. [Other] What do you think will happen to the world 50 years from now?
    By yenom in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 09-16-2009, 02:23 PM

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