Enneagram and Science

[norick]

So I'm a lurker finally posting something. :hi:

Upon being introduced to the Enneagram I was initially skeptical. MBTI seems a lot like astrology* to me sometimes, and I was worried this system might be sadly lacking in the empirical evidence department as well. But Enneagram makes a lot of sense and seems to lack the vagueness of astrology and MBTI**. It also has a sort of simple elegance to it that leads me to prefer it over socionics, which I don't fully understand yet.

What I want in this thread is your take on this:

Do you think the Enneagram system is scientific? Is it important for Enneagram to be scientific?

(I'm not making a poll because I want to know why.)



*ie bullshit
**that I've seen. It's possible I've managed to only find bad descriptions.

 

[Bubbles]

Do you think the Enneagram system is scientific? Is it important for Enneagram to be scientific?

Define "scientific." You mean biologically inherent, proven by scientific data, or what?

 

[speculative]

What I want in this thread is your take on this:

Do you think the Enneagram system is scientific? Is it important for Enneagram to be scientific?

For me, the self is an artform, so I don't need scientific validation.

However, there are inroads in that direction: The Enneagram Institute: Research

 

[Costrin]

Do you think the Enneagram system is scientific? Is it important for Enneagram to be scientific?

It's not really (typology in general, and psychology as a whole struggles with this). It'd be rather difficult to come up with a formal experiment for this kind of thing (since it's about internal things and motivations, plus the wide variety of types and subtypes and health levels). The only thing that would qualify it as Scientific™is if someone could give a survey/test that would give consistent results. Such a survey/test doesn't exist, though.

However, I don't think it's important that it's not Scientific™. Based on personal observation of others and myself, it seems true enough (while not a perfect system of course). Ultimately it's more of a tool than a description of natural phenomena.

**that I've seen. It's possible I've managed to only find bad descriptions.

Yeah there's a lot of bad descriptions out there. MBTI is good enough for it's purposes, but it doesn't hold up as well under close scrutiny as socionics/enneagram imo. Plus, it's a gateway drug for typology.

Also, welcome to the forum!