[Traditional Enneagram] The new and improved Enneagram! From the sponge and evan.

[Eric B]

Here BTW is the image again, since I had to move a year ago (It was a year ago today, in fact!) since AL shut down is ftp space:

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I'm just going to boil this down....

Then again, is there any proof of the eight MBTI functions?

There is no proof that they tangeably exist. In fact, it aggravates me when people discuss and analyze the MBTI as if the 8 processes were like real forces. However, what the MBTI at least has over the Enneagra, is a more logically sound structure.

I don't see the use of logic to try and find the truth.

I don't see the point in trying to find the truth without logic.

Bleh, my argument sure was weak >.<

Nobody's going to lynch you for it.

This is a different system of enneagram, since they are not sticking to the traditional system. There isn't integration, no levels of health, no wings that are next to type. Without that, in my opinion, this isn't enneagram. You are just blocking together on the surface traits of the various enneagram types to describe people.

I suppose there are a number of reasons to suggest that we should not have called it the enneagram at all. However, it is obvious enough that this is built from the enneagram that someone would have picked it up if we didn't mention it. I wonder how that person would have responded.

This theory is pure genius! I think you should call it Enneagram Stacks and keep the original descriptions of the types and just use the type with the two wings to combine into a certain type of person like the lover, the boss...etc...
Here is my data:
Behavior Emotion Motive
Avoiding Turbulent Intimate
Pursuing Controlled Social
Anticpating Suppressed Preservation

1. Avoiding Turbulent=4
2. Avoiding Control=9
3. Turbulent Pursuing=8
4. Avoiding Suppressed=5
5. Turbulent Anticipating=6
6. Pursuing Controlled=7
7. Pursuing Suppressed=3
8. Controlled Anticipating=2
9. Anticipating Suppressed=1

So, my final result is:
4>9>8 I-S-P.

And that amazes me because when I read all of the types, I realized that those three fit me best. I had a hard time believing that I was a 5w but I knew that I wasn't a 3w with the old system and this shows that a 3w is almost at the bottom of the list! WOW! Great work! Now maybe I can help you make it more readable to F personalities because the T jargon was hard to interpret even for me as an INFP.

And from one extreme to another. Thank you. Everything you have there pans out with the system provided in this thread.

In response to Eric, I'm still not sure about calling Anticipation the middle of Avoiding and Pursuing. I had at one time drawn a tree, with the base decision splitting into two brances, one being action and the other being inaction. The inaction terminated immedietely into antiicpation. The action than split again into the two branches of acting on desire/being lured by benefits and acting on fear/being repelled by costs. These respectively amount to pursuing and avoiding.I suppose, perhaps, a complete balance between pursuing and avoiding would make someone inactive and appear to be anticipating. However, there may be subtle differences.

In my idea of how these things worked, someone that is anticipating is waits for things to come to them, or lets the wind carry them away, but then accepts or rejects whatever comes to them this way based on their values. Comparatively, a person that is perfeclty struck between pursuing and avoiding sounds to me to unbudgeable and indecisive stuck and indecisive.

I'd like to add that another reason for my way of defining it is that I believe a person can be Avoidant > Pursuent > Anticipant, or Pursuent > Avoidant > Anticipant. Such people are restless people. People that can not take the passive or stable role.

 

[MellowMarcello]

Hello my bipedalled friend...

You are definitely 9w1...probably sp/sx.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Who is the bipedalled friend?

 

[reality.ensues]

Forgive me if this was already mentioned, but I don't want to search through nearly twenty pages.

When you said that adjacent types have no relation to each other, I don't think that was correct. The two variables you explained are the Harmonic and Hornevian groups, which I were aware of before reading this topic. However, the groups you're missing are the three triads of the enneagram: Instinctive (1, 8, 9), Feeling (2, 3, 4), and Thinking (5, 6, 7). Without these the Enneagram wouldn't have been an enneagram to begin with; it would have been a rectangular chart like the one you made. Factoring in the triads, 8 could indeed be a wing of 9.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I was just wondering about this.

Edit: Also, these charts show that the ordering of the types is far from arbitrary.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

When you said that adjacent types have no relation to each other, I don't think that was correct. The two variables you explained are the Harmonic and Hornevian groups, which I were aware of before reading this topic. However, the groups you're missing are the three triads of the enneagram: Instinctive (1, 8, 9), Feeling (2, 3, 4), and Thinking (5, 6, 7). Without these the Enneagram wouldn't have been an enneagram to begin with; it would have been a rectangular chart like the one you made. Factoring in the triads, 8 could indeed be a wing of 9.

I am aware of all of this. However, the fact is I could do more triads than that. Mathematically there are far more than three ways to arrange it. For instance, I considered a [1,4,7][2,5,8][3,6,9] grouping. I could potentially put any two types in the same group, in some way. If this were a base two system, it would be dichotomous, and I could at least find logical oppsites. Being that it's base three means it's even easier for me to find something in common between all types. The point I'm making is that by considering all arrangements, any type could potentially be the wing of any type. You then have a system so indiscriminate as to mean nothing at all.

The counter to this, would be if the wings and the lines were arranged in some way that clearly only makes sense in accordance to the particular triads that were chosen, and I have not seen proof of this.

The goal then is not to include every possible grouping. The goal was to make a more logically sound system, which I already tried to elaborate on to some extent in previous posts. The original enneagram gets too specific about it's type descriptions. More than is logicall warranted. It would either have to have way more types to include all possibilities, or it would have to be more conservative in its descriptions. Since we still have nine types, clearly we opted for the latter.

It's all a part of a still incomplete goal to sort of clarify the generally murky Enneagram.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I was just wondering about this.

Edit: Also, these charts show that the ordering of the types is far from arbitrary.

I think what I said above sufficiently responds to this.

 

[reality.ensues]

Yeah, I see your point now. Thanks.

 

[Invisiblemonkey]

Hm. Avoiding/Suppressive seems to work well, and I would've typed myself as a 5w1 had I the chance in the previous system... "Fascinating, Captain"

 

[phthalocyanine]

i know this is an old thread, but FYI, folks, the chart images don't seem to load anymore (at least they didn't for me).




because i found this system very intriguing (though initially difficult for me to work with due to distraction!), i attempted to give it a try again, even without the charts...

Avoidant> Anticipating > Pursuing
Turbulent > Suppressive > Controlling
Intimate > Preservational > Social

(decided 'avoidant' is my stronger preference)

i tried my hand at deciphering my breakdown, and came up with this:

Avoiding/Turbulent = 4
Avoiding/Suppressive = 5
Anticipating/Turbulent = 6
Avoiding/Controlling = 9
Pursuing/Turbulent = 8
Anticipating/Suppressive = 1
Anticipating/Controlling = 2
Pursuing/Suppressive = 3
Pursuing/Controlling = 7

is this correct, according to this system?

would that mean my original 4w5 typing is actually correct?

...i find the placement of 1 on this list to be surprisingly low, especially with 8 above it in the sequence, though i agree that 3 and 7 fit well 'on the bottom' for me.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

i know this is an old thread, but FYI, folks, the chart images don't seem to load anymore (at least they didn't for me).

Yeah, they have disappeared. It's very sad. The thread is too old for me to edit and fix anyhow.

because i found this system very intriguing (though initially difficult for me to work with due to distraction!), i attempted to give it a try again, even without the charts...

Avoidant> Anticipating > Pursuing
Turbulent > Suppressive > Controlling
Intimate > Preservational > Social

(decided 'avoidant' is my stronger preference)

i tried my hand at deciphering my breakdown, and came up with this:

Avoiding/Turbulent = 4
Avoiding/Suppressive = 5
Anticipating/Turbulent = 6
Avoiding/Controlling = 9
Pursuing/Turbulent = 8
Anticipating/Suppressive = 1
Anticipating/Controlling = 2
Pursuing/Suppressive = 3
Pursuing/Controlling = 7

is this correct, according to this system?

All of those are correct. However, the sequence doesn't exactly have to go like that.

would that mean my original 4w5 typing is actually correct?

It's honestly hard to say because there is such a change in the system that the reasons that you go this result and the reason you got that result might be more different than you think.

...i find the placement of 1 on this list to be surprisingly low, especially with 8 above it in the sequence, though i agree that 3 and 7 fit well 'on the bottom' for me.

And here's my point about the exact order. I think the top 3 and the bottom three can be deduced. The middle three are still something of a mystery as it were, and I just treat them for all intents and purposes as equal. How should the middle go? At this time, I can't say. Maybe the 1 should actually be the top of the middle block.

 

[BlueGray]

I ended up with Avoidant > Pursuing > Anticipating and Suppressive > Turbulent > Controlling.

Ironically this ended up giving me a type of 5 > 4 > 3. I found it somewhat amusing for the type to work out like this.

 

[Aleksei]

For the purpose of shameless promotion of this system (which I consider to be very good) as well as to help refine and find a purpose for it, I'll post my feedback here in order to bump this thread. Some of this I've already discussed with Magic Poriferan over AIM, some is new.

First order of business, this enneagram needs a name change. For one thing it is no longer an Enneagram of Personality, as it is no longer arranged in a visually aesthetic but arbitrary and useless manner. For another a lot of people are gonna complain that the new enneagram isn't as good as the old one, or much worse still, they could form some sort of weird synergy between the two the way Keirseyan role variants (and even Socionics! ) are merged with MBTI.

Secondly, I would say assigning one type and one wing is more than enough to arrive at a typological profile. Assigning two or even a descending order of wings could make the system a tad overcomplicated (not necessarily to read, but to build -- and a typological system without corresponding archetypes misses the point of typology).

Thirdly, I would say it's a good idea to concentrate on how this system connects to MBTI, as one of the best things about the original Enneagram was that it added an emotional dimension (motivations, ego fixation) to MBTI's cerebral one (cognition), to give a more complete personality profile. Fortunately because you did a great job on your improvements, I believe this one actually fits that role better. Better yet, it actually lends itself far better to a coherent shadow type theory, assuming we use the functional mirror theory of the shadow (XXXX-DSSD) rather than the type mirror theory (XXXX-DDDD). For example, it makes a lot of sense that the shadow of an ENTP 7w3 (Ne Ti Fe Si, Controlled > Pursuing > Suppressed) would be an INTJ 3w7 (Ni Te Fi Se, Suppressed > Pursuing > Controlled).

Finally, I really dislike your instinctual variant notation -- it looks downright unaesthetic, not to mention under it my stacking is PIS. X_X I'll keep the old version thank you very much.

Anyway, under your system I'm Suppressive > Avoidant > Turbulent > Pursuing > Controlled > Anticipating, Personal > Intimate > Social. 5/4/3 sp/sx.

 

[Aleksei]

Possible type equivalences from the old to the new system:

1w9- 1w6, 1w5

1w2- 1w2, 1w3

2w1- 2w1, 2w9

2w3- 2w7, 2w6

3w2- 3w1, 3w5

3w4- 3w8, 3w7

4w3- 4w8, 4w9

4w5- 4w5, 4w6

5w4- 5w4, 5w3

5w6- 5w1, 5w9

6w5- 6w1, 6w8

6w7- 6w4, 6w2

7w6- 7w9, 7w2

7w8- 7w8, 7w3

8w7- 8w7, 8w3

8w9- 8w6, 8w4

9w8- 9w7, 9w4

9w1- 9w2, 9w5

 

[Aleksei]

One more piece of feedback: You should really eliminate the behavior wings, for two powerful reasons.

First and most importantly, as I mentioned before one of the functions of the Enneagram wings is that they are shadows of each other. Now, the description of a shadow is the hidden aspect of your personality -- making it something that looks out of reach due to being superficially different, but is in fact internally very similar (in MBTI the shadows would be the same function oriented in a different direction for example -- Ne and Ni rather than Ne and Se). The emotion wings fit this description beautifully, immensely better than the old Enneagram wings do for the most part, but the behavior wings are sort of the opposite of that. 3 and 8 for example, are extremely similar on the surface (because they behave the same way), but very different underneath. That's not what a wing is supposed to be.

Second (and I think you'll like this better ), it reduces your Enneagram to the same number of combinations as the old one. Thus you've effectively completed your goal of creating a simpler version of the same system (though you'll still need to call it something different for reasons previously stated).

Following that the types would be as follows: 1w3, 1w5, 2w7, 2w9, 3w1, 3w5, 4w6, 4w8, 5w1, 5w3, 6w4, 6w8, 7w2, 7w9, 8w4, 8w6, 9w2, and 9w7. With their respective instinctual stacks of course.

Under this new system, I would be a 5w3 sp/sx.

 

[Fidelia]

Hey MP - Don't know how I missed this before, but I like it. You are good at laying things out in an easily understandable manner. Need to mull over this more, but I'm glad the thread got bumped.

 

[Rail Tracer]

So this is what I just came up with.

From greatest to least of each when it comes to preferences:

Motive:
Intimate
Social
Preservational

Behavior:
Avoiding
Anticipation
Pursuing

Emotion:
Controlled
Turbulent
Suppressed

From there I got (in order from greatest to least):
Avoiding Controlled: 9 (core)
Avoiding Turbulent: 4 (Dominant Wing)
Controlled Anticipation: 2 (Secondary Wing)
Avoiding Suppressed: 5 (Dominant Tertiary Wing)
Controlled Pursuing: 7 (Secondary Tertiary Wing)
Anticipation Turbulent: 6 (Second Row )
Anticipation Suppressed: 1
Turbulent Pursuing: 8
Pursuing Suppressed: 3 (Third Row)

This would put me at:
9>4>2>5>7>6>1>8>3?

So it would either be 9w4 or 9w2 sx/so/sp, at least for what I would believe to be my behavior and emotion stacking. Putting them together would look like 9w4w2 I-S-P. I find it funny that 8 and 1 is nowhere near 9 and that 3 is the lowest.

 

[Such Irony]

I'm clearly avoidant and suppressed going by your model. I think I'd be a 5w1 in that system. I usually score pretty high on type 1 so it makes sense.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

For the purpose of shameless promotion of this system (which I consider to be very good) as well as to help refine and find a purpose for it, I'll post my feedback here in order to bump this thread. Some of this I've already discussed with Magic Poriferan over AIM, some is new.


First order of business, this enneagram needs a name change. For one thing it is no longer an Enneagram of Personality, as it is no longer arranged in a visually aesthetic but arbitrary and useless manner. For another a lot of people are gonna complain that the new enneagram isn't as good as the old one, or much worse still, they could form some sort of weird synergy between the two the way Keirseyan role variants (and even Socionics! ) are merged with MBTI.

I'm inclined to agree with this. I'm still ruminating on what to call it. Indeed, though, I'm tired of being told it's not enough like the original Enneagram, but I'm even more worried by conflation with the old one. I started calling it the Enneagram because it seemed reasonable to reference the basis for this system, but was completely overlooked.

Secondly, I would say assigning one type and one wing is more than enough to arrive at a typological profile. Assigning two or even a descending order of wings could make the system a tad overcomplicated (not necessarily to read, but to build -- and a typological system without corresponding archetypes misses the point of typology).

I'm not so sure about this. The three middle types are indecipherable for now, but I think the top three and even the bottom three can be deduced. I don't think a typology necessarily has to be all about archetypes. One of the main reasons for the changes made here is that it allowed for a vast array of types that could be logical deduced from a minimal number of components. It was an attempt at the best of both worlds, by avoiding being too bound to rigid archetypes, but not having an overwrought mess.

Thirdly, I would say it's a good idea to concentrate on how this system connects to MBTI, as one of the best things about the original Enneagram was that it added an emotional dimension (motivations, ego fixation) to MBTI's cerebral one (cognition), to give a more complete personality profile. Fortunately because you did a great job on your improvements, I believe this one actually fits that role better. Better yet, it actually lends itself far better to a coherent shadow type theory, assuming we use the functional mirror theory of the shadow (XXXX-DSSD) rather than the type mirror theory (XXXX-DDDD). For example, it makes a lot of sense that the shadow of an ENTP 7w3 (Ne Ti Fe Si, Controlled > Pursuing > Suppressed) would be an INTJ 3w7 (Ni Te Fi Se, Suppressed > Pursuing > Controlled).

This makes sense in some says, but I don't want to operate 100% along these lines, lest this system merely become a symbiote when I think it still has the capacity to stand on its own if necessary.

As for a coherent shadow theory, I think that might be a pipe dream.

Finally, I really dislike your instinctual variant notation -- it looks downright unaesthetic, not to mention under it my stacking is PIS. X_X I'll keep the old version thank you very much.

Anyway, under your system I'm Suppressive > Avoidant > Turbulent > Pursuing > Controlled > Anticipating, Personal > Intimate > Social. 5/4/3 sp/sx.

Can't account for taste. I'll keep peddling my notation, thank you very much.

One more piece of feedback: You should really eliminate the behavior wings, for two powerful reasons.

First and most importantly, as I mentioned before one of the functions of the Enneagram wings is that they are shadows of each other. Now, the description of a shadow is the hidden aspect of your personality -- making it something that looks out of reach due to being superficially different, but is in fact internally very similar (in MBTI the shadows would be the same function oriented in a different direction for example -- Ne and Ni rather than Ne and Se). The emotion wings fit this description beautifully, immensely better than the old Enneagram wings do for the most part, but the behavior wings are sort of the opposite of that. 3 and 8 for example, are extremely similar on the surface (because they behave the same way), but very different underneath. That's not what a wing is supposed to be.

That may have been what a wing was all about to another system, but I don't see why it needs to be that way. I think the difference between types on either variable is equally relevant, and one reason in particular that I want to keep both is that some people don't connect very much to one of the types, but they do to the other. If we cut out all the behavioral wings, that would create a hole in place of all the people who have far more variable behavior preferences than emotional preferences.

Second (and I think you'll like this better ), it reduces your Enneagram to the same number of combinations as the old one. Thus you've effectively completed your goal of creating a simpler version of the same system (though you'll still need to call it something different for reasons previously stated).

Following that the types would be as follows: 1w3, 1w5, 2w7, 2w9, 3w1, 3w5, 4w6, 4w8, 5w1, 5w3, 6w4, 6w8, 7w2, 7w9, 8w4, 8w6, 9w2, and 9w7. With their respective instinctual stacks of course.

Under this new system, I would be a 5w3 sp/sx.

This would matter to me more if it had not already been decided to stop refering to this as the Enneagram in anyway.

As an aside, I only have 9 core types. The fact that I have more different types with the additional components is true, but that's also true of the original enneagram, if you include the wings, the instincts, and the levels of health or lines of integration and disintegration.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

Hey MP - Don't know how I missed this before, but I like it. You are good at laying things out in an easily understandable manner. Need to mull over this more, but I'm glad the thread got bumped.

Thank you, ma'am.

So this is what I just came up with.

From greatest to least of each when it comes to preferences:

Motive:
Intimate
Social
Preservational

Behavior:
Avoiding
Anticipation
Pursuing

Emotion:
Controlled
Turbulent
Suppressed

From there I got (in order from greatest to least):
Avoiding Controlled: 9 (core)
Avoiding Turbulent: 4 (Dominant Wing)
Controlled Anticipation: 2 (Secondary Wing)
Avoiding Suppressed: 5 (Dominant Tertiary Wing)
Controlled Pursuing: 7 (Secondary Tertiary Wing)
Anticipation Turbulent: 6 (Second Row )
Anticipation Suppressed: 1
Turbulent Pursuing: 8
Pursuing Suppressed: 3 (Third Row)

This would put me at:
9>4>2>5>7>6>1>8>3?

So it would either be 9w4 or 9w2 sx/so/sp, at least for what I would believe to be my behavior and emotion stacking. Putting them together would look like 9w4w2 I-S-P. I find it funny that 8 and 1 is nowhere near 9 and that 3 is the lowest.

The first three and the last three check out. The middle three, as I've said before, do not go in any determinate order for now. It's fun to see which order each person intuitively decides it should go in. But either way, you worked it out correctly.

 

[Rail Tracer]

The first three and the last three check out. The middle three, as I've said before, do not go in any determinate order for now. It's fun to see which order each person intuitively decides it should go in. But either way, you worked it out correctly.

I think my avoiding behavior comes out stronger than my controlled emotion. If I had to switch out either one for a different behavior or a different emotion, it would almost always be the emotion that I'll switch out.

Which is why my dominant wing and tertiary are both Avoiding + Emotion.
While my secondary wing and tertiary are both Behavior + Controlled.