# Thread: Why I Am No Longer An Enneagrammist

1. Originally Posted by Mal12345
I can see that you're no longer talking about the enneagram except for the idea of 5 integrating to 7.
I'm talking about the integration/disintegration idea in the Enneagram. Not picking on 5->7 at all.

2. Originally Posted by jscrothers
I'm talking about the integration/disintegration idea in the Enneagram. Not picking on 5->7 at all.
I'm not saying you're picking on 5 - 7, just that you're no longer talking about the lines of integration/disintegration therefore you're no longer talking about the enneagram. What exactly are you "integrating"?

3. Originally Posted by Mal12345
I'm not saying you're picking on 5 - 7, just that you're no longer talking about the lines of integration/disintegration therefore you're no longer talking about the enneagram. What exactly are you "integrating"?
I'm talking about the lines of dis/integration. I'm saying that the reasoning behind the dis/integration lines as they exist aren't as obviously true as the Enneagram posits, which is most of the reason why I don't find them to be useful. I want to try to understand why they're seen as useful.

Of course, if I believe that 5 integrates to 7 or that 8 integrates to 6, rather than to 8 and 2 respectively, then I'm technically talking about another system since the Enneagram's definition includes the lines of dis/integration as they are. I'm not concerned about whether or not I'm technically not talking about the Enneagram.

edit: Prime example above. I actually do see the integration of 8 to 2 as baffling. (Of course, this isn't a lynchpin that when removed makes the entire thing fall apart.)

4. Originally Posted by jscrothers
I'm talking about the lines of dis/integration. I'm saying that the reasoning behind the dis/integration lines as they exist aren't as obviously true as the Enneagram posits, which is most of the reason why I don't find them to be useful. I want to try to understand why they're seen as useful.

Of course, if I believe that 5 integrates to 7 or that 8 integrates to 6, rather than to 8 and 2 respectively, then I'm technically talking about another system since the Enneagram's definition includes the lines of dis/integration as they are. I'm not concerned about whether or not I'm technically not talking about the Enneagram.
Here's where you're wrong:

While it's true that 2+2=4 is an obvious truth, when you start examining this equation it no longer seems so obvious after all.

The enneagram is based on universal laws. If you change the enneagram then you're changing universal laws, such as the Law of Harmonics, Trialectical Logic (the Law of Mutation, the Law of Circulation, and the Law of Attraction), and the Law of Octaves. Since you can't change universal laws, your approach to things will be merely speculative, as in some of the worse kinds of science fiction.

5. Originally Posted by Mal12345
Here's where you're wrong:

While it's true that 2+2=4 is an obvious truth, when you start examining this equation it no longer seems so obvious after all.

The enneagram is based on universal laws. If you change the enneagram then you're changing universal laws, such as the Law of Harmonics, Trialectical Logic (the Law of Mutation, the Law of Circulation, and the Law of Attraction), and the Law of Octaves. Since you can't change universal laws, your approach to things will be merely speculative, as in some of the worse kinds of science fiction.
How is the Enneagram based on universal laws?

6. Originally Posted by jscrothers
How is the Enneagram based on universal laws?
This explanation is unfortunately very simplified but here you go:

7. It seems suspect to me.

I've gotta be honest that, when I joined this forum, it was startling how much weight so many members put in the enneagram, with many seemingly placing it ahead of JCF and MBTI as a valid system.

8. Originally Posted by Mal12345
This explanation is unfortunately very simplified but here you go:

Shapes do show patterns that reality may also follow (see: natural phenomena taking on fractal features). Shapes can make a good predictive tool if they describe some universal pattern. But there are other potential patterns connecting nine points as well. The nonagon comes to mind as probably the simplest example. Or, if one believes that universal patterns occur in threes, you can slap three three-sided shapes (triangles) together to also describe a connection among nine points. Three threes is pretty elegant, and three just happens a lot in nature.

More significant is this: Socionics pulls up mathematical justification for its truth as well. Four binary digits describe 16 types. Holding 1-4 bits constant and allowing the rest to fluctuate creates dichotomies, which in turn lead to Reinin dichotomies, which in turn describe intertype relationships. Mathematical symmetry doesn't make that whole shebang any less suspect.

9. Originally Posted by jscrothers
Shapes do show patterns that reality may also follow (see: natural phenomena taking on fractal features). Shapes can make a good predictive tool if they describe some universal pattern. But there are other potential patterns connecting nine points as well. The nonagon comes to mind as probably the simplest example. Or, if one believes that universal patterns occur in threes, you can slap three three-sided shapes (triangles) together to also describe a connection among nine points. Three threes is pretty elegant, and three just happens a lot in nature.

More significant is this: Socionics pulls up mathematical justification for its truth as well. Four binary digits describe 16 types. Holding 1-4 bits constant and allowing the rest to fluctuate creates dichotomies, which in turn lead to Reinin dichotomies, which in turn describe intertype relationships. Mathematical symmetry doesn't make that whole shebang any less suspect.
I didn't believe in the enneagram for any metaphysical reasons, only because it was such a great help - over 20 years ago. But it really hasn't done anything for me since then.

10. Hey Mal, this is interesting. I don't disagree with a lot of what you're saying, actually. It panders to the masses, and some of the authors do a piss-poor job correlating it to other system. I agree.

But it sounds like you don't like the enneagram anymore simply because of these things. It sounds more like it's a reaction against this, rather than any inherent annoyance with the system itself. So I guess my question is, is it really that bad?? I just sort of ignore the "campy" stuff and come to my own understanding.

I like JCF a lot now, too, though.

Originally Posted by Mal12345
The only thing I like about the enneagram are the lines of integration and disintegration, but only because I believe these are in some way related to JCF. In other words, the enneagram has credibility only in reference to another theory that has credibility.
I'd like to hear more about that part, actually. You mentioned Pe correlating to 7 and being an IxxP and identifying with 5, already. That seems astute. If you have any other thoughts, I'd love to hear them.

#### 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