[Traditional Enneagram] Enneagram Type and MBTI function correlations...

[LadyLazarus]

This is not an arthouse J... This is a factory that mass-produces types using a system that is supposed to be consistent within itself... It only produces 16 types of paintings... And if there's a clear-cut inconsistency between each type of painting, then either the factory or the painting is erroneous somehow... One of them has to be abandoned...

Is this what communism is about? Should we all be getting the same haircut and color coordinating our underwear as well? How the fuck are we all supposed to contort ourselves enough to fit into just 16 stereotypes?? We're all going to have discrepancies outside of type as we are humans not blank pieces of driftwood. Just because someone doesn't fit into every little nook and cranny of a type doesn't mean they're not that type, otherwise no one is any type. Also; what the fucking fuck?! I don't know about you, but I am NOT mass produced and this is not a factory that cranks out perfect examples of each type. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with me or anyone else at all. This is not black and white, nothing ever is, there will always be inconsistencies especially when it comes to human beings.

 

[LittleV]

As much as you might mean well at times, and as nice as this could seem... things aren't this black & white in human research; error terms exist due to endless limitations and confounds.

 

[yeghor]

Humanity is infinitely diverse.

You have to remember that typology is merely an attempt to simplify that diversity by applying categorizations, in hopes of achieving better understanding of self and others. But there are no clear delineations. You have to draw the line somewhere. But since there aren't actually 16 discrete types of human, that line can be a bit arbitrary for a portion of the population.

It's like looking at a color spectrum and having to clearly mark off where "green" is. It's easy to point to the middle of the green area, but as you move towards other colors it becomes a little murkier. And yet, there is still value in the term green, even if there are bluish greens or greyish greens too.

I understand that but as far as MBTI goes, which is what this forum is based upon, this is the definition of humankind...:

Problem arises when someone claims to be one color but radiates more like another... This is an inconsistency in the system... Thus, either the system itself is flawed or the color itself is wrong...

If colors are incorrectly labeled, how could one learn about the details of that specific color by interaction? You may think you are learning about green, which may in fact be yellow...distorting the perception about the entire system...

Do you see this as a problem...? If yes, how to alleviate it?

 

[yeghor]

Is this what communism is about? Should we all be getting the same haircut and color coordinating our underwear as well? How the fuck are we all supposed to contort ourselves enough to fit into just 16 stereotypes?? We're all going to have discrepancies outside of type as we are humans not blank pieces of driftwood. Just because someone doesn't fit into every little nook and cranny of a type doesn't mean they're not that type, otherwise no one is any type. Also; what the fucking fuck?! I don't know about you, but I am NOT mass produced and this is not a factory that cranks out perfect examples of each type. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with me or anyone else at all. This is not black and white, nothing ever is, there will always be inconsistencies especially when it comes to human beings.

That is about typology...nothing else... Isn't this the typologycentral? What's this forum about?

 

[LadyLazarus]

That is about typology...nothing else... Isn't this the typologycentral? What's this forum about?

Typology, if you haven't noticed, is(/are, whatever) a system for categorizing(and whatnot) humans , it doesn't matter whether you think it's about typology or not, the fact of the matter is that these types were created to categorize humans not the reverse. Ignoring the human aspects of diversity and complexity is simply foolish, it leads to inflexible, two dimensional thinking.

 

[HongDou]

I understand that but as far as MBTI goes, which is what this forum is based upon, this is the definition of humankind...:

Problem arises when someone claims to be one color but radiates more like another... This is an inconsistency in the system... Thus, either the system itself is flawed or the color itself is wrong...

Or, the system is just oversimplified.

Basically, your understanding of MBTI and Enneagram is too rigid and you need to learn to accept the fact that these labels will not account for every single trait, behavior, whim, etc of human nature.

Humans are far too complex to be reduced to a label.

So it's not that the color is wrong or the system is wrong, it's just that the system only works to a certain extent.

 

[yeghor]

Typology, if you haven't noticed, is a system for categorizing(and whatnot) humans , it doesn't matter whether you think it's about typology or not, the fact of the matter is that these types were created to categorize humans not the reverse. Ignoring the human aspect is simply foolish, it leads to inflexible, two dimensional thinking.

Actually we seem to be on the same page... Humans do make mistakes... If you don't want to be identified with and labeled by your type, simply remove your type info in your avatar...

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

It would seem some have forgotten that the system itself was devised to be used realistically. Structure is meant to serve what exists, what exists is not meant to serve structure. Otherwise, structure is pointless, as it is inherently flawed.

These psychological systems were devised to understand the various mechanics behind a person's psyche and motivations. They were not built to be imposed on people.

Also, for [MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION]'s color argument, I'm sure the tetrachromats would love that the reason they are grouped under a color that they actually aren't is because the trichromatic people who built the systems can't see their actual color.

 

[yeghor]

It would seem some have forgotten that the system itself was devised to be used realistically. Structure is meant to serve what exists, what exists is not meant to serve structure. Otherwise, structure is pointless, as it is inherently flawed.

These psychological systems were devised to understand the various mechanics behind a person's psyche and motivations. They were not built to be imposed on people.

People are imposing it on themselves by their own choice...

 

[HongDou]

People are imposing it on themselves by their own choice...

Looking at how you fit into a theory =/= imposing structural labels on yourself.

 

[LadyLazarus]

Actually we seem to be on the same page... Humans do make mistakes... If you don't want to be identified with and labeled by your type, simply remove your type info in your avatar...

I highly doubt it, I'm not saying complexity is a mistake, or perhaps it is; the mistake of not being born a two dimensional piece of cardboard, easily and cleanly categorized. No, you missed the entire point; I am saying that I don't want to be limited to just my type. That, that's not the way things work. I am an ISFP but that is not all that I am, it would be stupid for me to think so. A type is a broad snapshot, a still-life painting, I do not always act like an ISFP, nor will I ever always act like an ISFP. Also, let me have a teenage girl moment here and say: don't ever tell me what to do again.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

People are imposing it on themselves by their own choice...

And they are wrong. It's built to help them understand how they work generally, not state who they are as a person. Structures should provide general information about specific subsets, such as the cognitive functions a person uses rather than idiosyncratic personality traits. Structures should provide the basic information, what makes something under a specific categorization.

 

[yeghor]

And they are wrong. It's built to help them understand how they work generally, not state who they are as a person. Structures should provide general information about specific subsets, such as the cognitive functions a person uses rather than idiosyncratic personality traits. Structures should provide the basic information, what makes something under a specific categorization.

And used preferably for self-awareness purposes rather than self-gratification...

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

And used preferably for self-awareness purposes rather than self-gratification...

Precisely.

However, the structure cannot rule the observable features in the environment, the observable features in the environment must rule the structure. Otherwise, we fall prey to the ideal rather than the real.

 

[yeghor]

Precisely.

However, the structure cannot rule the observable features in the environment, the observable features in the environment must rule the structure. Otherwise, we fall prey to the ideal rather than the real.

Yes, the system\model should not be static but dynamic...and it should be able to revise and update\upgrade itself...

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Yes, the system\model should not be static but dynamic...and it should be able to revise and update\upgrade itself...

No, the system should be enslaved to the data, and should be based generally to accommodate every point.

 

[yeghor]

No, the system should be enslaved to the data, and should be based generally to accommodate every point.

I think we are saying the same thing...perhaps I couldn't say it that well...

 

[HongDou]

I think we are saying the same thing...perhaps I couldn't say it that well...

Seeing this coming from the one who argued that INFJs have to be type 1 and 4/5/6 INFJs (which are much more common Enneagram types for INFJs statistically) are mistyped, I don't think you two are seeing eye-to-eye.

 

[yeghor]

I highly doubt it, I'm not saying complexity is a mistake, or perhaps it is; the mistake of not being born a two dimensional piece of cardboard, easily and cleanly categorized. No, you missed the entire point; I am saying that I don't want to be limited to just my type. That, that's not the way things work. I am an ISFP but that is not all that I am, it would be stupid for me to think so. A type is a broad snapshot, a still-life painting, I do not always act like an ISFP, nor will I ever always act like an ISFP. Also, let me have a teenage girl moment here and say: don't ever tell me what to do again.

Calm down...

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

Seeing this coming from the one who argued that INFJs have to be type 1 and 4/5/6 INFJs (which are much more common Enneagram types for INFJs, statistically) are mistyped, I don't think you two are seeing eye-to-eye.

Ironically what we have here is the irrationality of rationality. [MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION] has consistently attempted to provide subjectively defined structure to explain things according to his/her mental framework rather than what is actually present in the environment. Therefore, it is not surprising that, when kicked into overdrive such as right now, there is a desire to make things perfectly clear-cut and ruthlessly blocked, eliminating the individualized generalizations for collectivist specifications (oh, the oxymorons, let them flow).