I dont think you got what Im talking about... It is as if we are speaking in different frequencies here.
Happens all the time with me anyway. Sorry for that.
Whether an idea is old or not shouldn’t be the determining factor in deciding if it’s correct either, what really matters is if it’s logically consistent and accurately reflects reality, which the core fears in enneagram certainly seem to do.
This is actually what lies behind my central point and this certainty is what I dont have for my own brain's sake.
What differentiates these stuff from astrology for the moment are indeed the self-report tests. Different from MBTI and Big Five, the Enneagram has not been tested that much. The few stuff that I could read about the enneagram on Google Scholar only had the nine types at their original descriptions, with a few exceptions that had stuff like development. You can read a resume of that here:
e-space
The core fears and motivations has not been properly revised and they should be quite difficult to do so. When the enneagram system is read by other systems, such as Big 5, as it is done in the article, some questions starts to show up - for example, in the heart-head-gut, a heart type show up full of thinkers which doesnt really make much sense. However, what Im trying to tell you is that the places where you read stuff are full of people who can make anything sound so logical when it really isnt - they are good at sound convincing. So one answer of their own is that the heart type full of MBTI thinkers is a heart type because they "deny thinking" (something like that), but you can say that to basically any feeler on MBTI and to Fi-dom and Fe-dom type in Jung typology.
What I am trying to communicate with this example is that I dont take what they say a 100% for granted. So, for example, if they say that 9s are avoidant, I ask myself "is it?", I also question myself "Couldnt be avoidant behaviour be an introvert characteristic?", "If avoidance is an introvert characteristic, and 4s, 5s, 6s are mostly composed by introverts, then couldn't they be avoidant too?". What I generally do is to not focus on myself on a small part of theory that is full of risks and unreliable (the "mechanisms", the fears and the desires, especially the earlier), but instead I prefer to focus on the whole thing. What I am trying to say is that you not relating to the normal type 9 profile is a significant problem for you to consider yourself a type 9 core, and because of Google Scholar articles I trust more the profile descriptions instead of these fears, motivations and stuff. I hope I made it clearer now.
This is kind of a non-argument. There’s no way to know if the real essence of enneagram is the core fear, so I should just assume it’s the behavior? That doesn’t make sense, especially considering the mechanisms and behaviors that are characteristic of each enneagram type are a function of their core fear. (The motivations go hand in hand with the core fear too.) People can act in the same way for different reasons, so a system that just describes a superficial pattern of behavior and leaves it at that has a pretty limited use. Whether an idea is old or not shouldn’t be the determining factor in deciding if it’s correct either, what really matters is if it’s logically consistent and accurately reflects reality, which the core fears in enneagram certainly seem to do. Old ideas can be refined and perfected, assuming that ideas are complete and untouchable from the moment of conception is a pretty regressive mindset.
I already partially explained by answering the last quote, but repeating for the sake of clarity.. since I dont have much reasons to fully trust their claims about fear, motivations and mechanisms (specially because I dont really know if they really glues together consistently), I consider these plus the behaviour and type profiles. What Im trying to tell you is to not discard the profiles and use just the fears and the mechanisms, so I like to evaluate considering motivations, fears and behaviours from type profile, not just motivations and fears.
The reason I say the enneagram is old is that the latter attachments made to it (which we dont know exactly which are) could be dead wrong while the old enneagram could be very right. People didnt have truly rigorously monitored these attachments, so these new attachment could have at logical inconsistencies (actually, I think some of them just do).
I also went in on how avoidant I have been in the past and how I’ve had problems with repression, stagnation, and excessive accommodation, which is quite in line with common 9 problems, so I’m not too sure of where you’re seeing the discrepancies.
That is a good point.
I don't think this is a fair comparison. Cognitive functions are modes of processing and judging the world, so it makes sense that people could hone them since they’re somewhat akin to a skill in that way, and can be developed as such with maturity and life experience. Enneagram on the other hand is a wound that forms in childhood. It’s a product of the ego. You go up or down on a health scale, your core fears and motivations don't just exist one day and then change the next, just like how you can’t forcibly change your cognitive functions. If you ignore the fear and only go by superficial behaviors you have a terribly vague and unstable system where people would change types depending on their moods. A personality system where you can just pick “whichever sounds cooler†has no real purpose.
I think instead of comparing cognitive functions vs enneagram behaviors it would be more accurate to compare cognitive function produced behavior and enneagram behavior. You can have a spontaneous ENTP and ESTP who both act spontaneous in the same way but for different reasons, like you would have an 8 and a counterphobic 6 lash out in similar ways but for completely different reasons.
Bold part: You had basically described one of the reasons that the MBTI test-retest rate is not a 100%, but instead something like 60-70% (in a window of... I dont know if it is a month or a year). However, the super deep theory where I can detect a 100% your own unchangeable core type is still yet to make it to the existance - a one that would have 80-95% of test-restest rate would be amazing already (with many or at least some multiple types, of course). And the cognitive functions are way less immune to that than one can think of.
What I was trying to tell you with that comparison is that, at the same time that we dont have only one hyper central type on Jungian typology, we dont have that either on other systems as well. What Im trying to communicate is that the notion of "I am a 9 therefore I cant be a 5" is a very black and white thinking. That is why I like tri-types way better regardless of the centers and preferable with no centers at al and just the types on a raw base instead, because they help you to describe yourself in terms of multiple types and not with the black and white thinking of "I am a 9 therefore I cant be a 5", which on the fears department might translate as "I have fear A therefore I dont have fear B", because you can have both. And if both run strong towards you, then saying you are both isnt wrong. If you relate to the trait description of one, but the fears and motivations of the other, the most rational answer is that you are a mix of both, that is what Im trying to say here. If you are a mix of both and both runs strong on you, then just picking the one you like the most isnt a self-lie, because both are acceptable answers.
