Enneagram: Logically Fallacious

[Mind Maverick]

The entire Enneagram is founded upon logical fallacies and postulates many things.

It purports that...

1) We each have one main core fear. Why is there only one strongest one, and why is everyone only confined to these nine?

2) Not only are there are only nine options for which "core" fear we identify with, there are also only nine "defense mechanisms" we have. That implies that there is only one way people can respond to each of these nine "core fear" options.

This is essentially a False Dilemma fallacy.

3) This core fear can never change. Why is this assumed to be true, especially when parts of psychology show us otherwise? Why does it state that we can never rewire our brains so that these "types" are no longer our default setting? All we really have to do is alter core beliefs, perspectives, understandings, etc. to change several of those fears. Reprogramming our minds.

Why is this one "core fear" associated with personality, anyway?

The entire thing is just dribbling with fallacious logic and mystical, magical thinking. It's founded upon several unfounded assumptions.

 

[CertainlySkeptic]

There is no such thing as "fear" in Enneagram. It's a fallacy.

 

[Mind Maverick]

There is no such thing as "fear" in Enneagram. It's a fallacy.

What?

 

[Vendrah]

The entire Enneagram is founded upon logical fallacies and postulates many things.

It purports that...

1) We each have one main core fear. Why is there only one strongest one, and why is everyone only confined to these nine?

2) Not only are there are only nine options for which "core" fear we identify with, there are also only nine "defense mechanisms" we have. That implies that there is only one way people can respond to each of these nine "core fear" options.

This is essentially a False Dilemma fallacy.

3) This core fear can never change. Why is this assumed to be true, especially when parts of psychology show us otherwise? Why does it state that we can never rewire our brains so that these "types" are no longer our default setting? All we really have to do is alter core beliefs, perspectives, understandings, etc. to change several of those fears. Reprogramming our minds.

Why is this one "core fear" associated with personality, anyway?

The entire thing is just dribbling with fallacious logic and mystical, magical thinking. It's founded upon several unfounded assumptions.

I think you are right, that is why its non-scientific.
There was a guy on reddit who informed me better. The enneagram figure is a mythical simbol, you can read that on wikipedia. That is the mystical and spiritual part. However, the symbol was more abroad. On some point on 20th century, Ichazo and then Naranjo or vice-versa, Im not super informed, did adapted it to a system of personality types. So basically most of we know are observations of both plus a few more authors such as Beatrice Chesnut about what they think the 9 types and the dynamics are.

 

[Mind Maverick]

I think you are right, that is why its non-scientific.
There was a guy on reddit who informed me better. The enneagram figure is a mythical simbol, you can read that on wikipedia. That is the mystical and spiritual part. However, the symbol was more abroad. On some point on 20th century, Ichazo and then Naranjo or vice-versa, Im not super informed, did adapted it to a system of personality types. So basically most of we know are observations of both plus a few more authors such as Beatrice Chesnut about what they think the 9 types and the dynamics are.

It's basically just a bunch of esoteric stuff. I think the fact that there are more than 9 defense mechanisms in psychology already basically proves the Enneagram system is nonsense.

 

[RadicalDoubt]

It's basically just a bunch of esoteric stuff. I think the fact that there are more than 9 defense mechanisms in psychology already basically proves the Enneagram system is nonsense.

I don't think it's nonsense as much as it's just archetypal. The enneagram does not claim that there are only 9 defense mechanisms or fears, they are meant to be universal and the point of the "connectivity" between the different types is that the fears mentioned are very common ones which co-exist to some degree within everyone. Over focusing on one fear over another often generates some of the behaviors and mechanisms, which can be patterned in the form of archetypes. Your assumptions here seem a bit black and white to be fair and I do think many sources push for this. It is important to recognize it as an archetype system (which is meant to be loose) rather than a system that is scientific in any way or works differently from a philosophy that attempts to point out common personality pitfalls based off common motivation types.

The biggest assumption that we can argue is faulty that the enneagram makes is the assumption of a static personality. It leaves room and pushes for development, but makes the assumption that that baseline will always be maintained. For a lot of people, this is at least partially true, with the sense of identity and self being maintained across time built by memories and habits, but falls short in accounting for circumstances in which this is not the case and degree of fluidity fear and behavior can take on. This is a common pitfall of most personality theorems. In addition, it also imposes an ideal direction of change that is supposed to work for most people who can be categorized within the archetype, which is not always the case. Vendrah also brings up pretty good points on the spirituality of it.

 

[CertainlySkeptic]

Fear and desire don't exist, it's merely a "pseudo-scientific" interpretation coming from RH.

 

[tanstaafl628]

Fear and desire don't exist, it's merely a "pseudo-scientific" interpretation coming from RH.

So you're completely devoid of fear and desire? Have you checked your pulse lately?

 

[CertainlySkeptic]

So you're completely devoid of fear and desire? Have you checked your pulse lately?

Yes. Yes.

 

[tanstaafl628]

Yes. Yes.

Fascinating. You sound like a Vulcan. ;-)

 

[Smilephantomhive]

The most irritating part about enneagram is how no one can seem to agree on which types mean what. that is the same for all typology though.

 

[tanstaafl628]

The most irritating part about enneagram is how no one can seem to agree on which types mean what. that is the same for all typology though.

Wouldn't that be kind of indicative of the variation we see in everyone?

 

[Smilephantomhive]

Wouldn't that be kind of indicative of the variation we see in everyone?

Wdym?

 

[Mind Maverick]

I don't think it's nonsense as much as it's just archetypal. The enneagram does not claim that there are only 9 defense mechanisms or fears, they are meant to be universal and the point of the "connectivity" between the different types is that the fears mentioned are very common ones which co-exist to some degree within everyone. Over focusing on one fear over another often generates some of the behaviors and mechanisms, which can be patterned in the form of archetypes. Your assumptions here seem a bit black and white to be fair and I do think many sources push for this. It is important to recognize it as an archetype system (which is meant to be loose) rather than a system that is scientific in any way or works differently from a philosophy that attempts to point out common personality pitfalls based off common motivation types.

The biggest assumption that we can argue is faulty that the enneagram makes is the assumption of a static personality. It leaves room and pushes for development, but makes the assumption that that baseline will always be maintained. For a lot of people, this is at least partially true, with the sense of identity and self being maintained across time built by memories and habits, but falls short in accounting for circumstances in which this is not the case and degree of fluidity fear and behavior can take on. This is a common pitfall of most personality theorems. In addition, it also imposes an ideal direction of change that is supposed to work for most people who can be categorized within the archetype, which is not always the case. Vendrah also brings up pretty good points on the spirituality of it.

How are you defining "nonsense" here?

Hmm, I might be seeing things too black and white, but I have to admit, I'm not really seeing how. I'm aware I do at times have that flaw, though.

It is a loose, archetype based system. If I didn't think it was, I would've never typed as anything, most likely. The problem I have with it is mostly in how the typology community gets so caught up in it that they see every similarity to a type as something that's actually type related. The end result is more or less turning into horrible listeners with closed minds, unable to accept nuances or differences in the other person's information. I'm having a difficult time with articulating myself clearly, as my thoughts are mainly visuals and I'm exhausted at the moment. An example of what I'm trying to say, though, is...imagine you share with a friend that someone who is extremely close to you and knows you well completely misjudged your character in some situation, and that it bothered you because you thought they knew you better than that. (I have no idea, I'm just thinking of a random hypothetical scenario.) What the type community does in general is take that tidbit of information, and because it has some minor similarity to some other theory they studied, they start associating you with that archetype in the theory, and then that's all they see. That kind of stuff is what I'm trying to counter here.

My statement about types not changing was from WoE, this was not an assumption—well, it was, actually, but it wasn't mine. It was regurgitated information. I addressed the issues with Enneagram as it has been laid out by the resources.

 

[Mind Maverick]

Ahh, I just now reread my post and realized I said it was nonsense first.

Honestly, if it was only a list of possible defense mechanisms some people can have sometimes, I wouldn't have any problem with it. It overstepped once it became a personality system. There's a reason personality psychologists don't use this, MBTI, Socionics, etc.

 

[jason_m]

The entire Enneagram is founded upon logical fallacies and postulates many things.

It purports that...

1) We each have one main core fear. Why is there only one strongest one, and why is everyone only confined to these nine?

2) Not only are there are only nine options for which "core" fear we identify with, there are also only nine "defense mechanisms" we have. That implies that there is only one way people can respond to each of these nine "core fear" options.

This is essentially a False Dilemma fallacy.

3) This core fear can never change. Why is this assumed to be true, especially when parts of psychology show us otherwise? Why does it state that we can never rewire our brains so that these "types" are no longer our default setting? All we really have to do is alter core beliefs, perspectives, understandings, etc. to change several of those fears. Reprogramming our minds.

Why is this one "core fear" associated with personality, anyway?

The entire thing is just dribbling with fallacious logic and mystical, magical thinking. It's founded upon several unfounded assumptions.

The only part of the theory that is false is that certain things "must" or "must not" go together. For instance, that nines "must" either have a one or eight wing, that fives would "never" confuse themselves with nines or that fives "strictly" disintegrate to seven. The rest is just soft science, so as long as those beuracratic, "law enforcement-esque" rules and regulations are taken out, the theory is logically acceptable...

When I studied socionics, that was my problem with the theory: "LIIs *must* be a certain way." That is simply why I abandoned it...

 

[Tonitrum]

Yeah, I understand the frustration from this, the human mind is very complex, and as time passes, situations changes, therefore we change ourselves too, yet typologies never respect the fact that we humans change overtime.

 

[yeghor]

Constant development of the psyche over time is reflected by the strength of the MBTI functions and the ennegram type scores.

Both models are a representation of the primary and auxiliary neural pathways in our brain, which are reinforced over time, starting from infancy. I suspect by birth we are predisposed to favor certain pathways over the others, based on our individual genetic configuration. That genetic component prevents us from arbitrarily changing our primary pathway, hence the preferred cognitive functions and preferred enneagram demeanors.

In other words, our genetic code determines whether we will be born an NF, NT, SF or ST. Our interactions with the world then shapes how we will branch out that core type.

For instance, you may be born genetically an NF, but your experiences with the primary caregivers and primary environment during infancy might turn your personality into an ENFP, INFP, ENFJ or INFJ. Once it is branched out, it would require a physical or psychological trauma to change that neural conditioning set during infancy.

Not sure how they decided on the number of primary cognitive functions and enneagram types. This site provides the following explanation:

"Ichazo actually taught Aricans a system of 108 Enneagrams (or "Enneagons," in his terminology), but the Enneagram movement in America has been based on the first few, and primarily on four of them. These are called the Enneagram of the Passions, the Enneagram of the Virtues, the Enneagram of the Fixations, the Enneagram of the Holy Ideas.

In developing his Enneagram theories, he drew upon a recurrent theme in Western mystical and philosophical tradition—the idea of nine divine forms. This idea was discussed by Plato as the Divine Forms or Platonic Solids, qualities of existence that are essential, that cannot be broken down into constituent parts. This idea was further developed in the third century of our era by the Neo-Platonic philosophers, particularly Plotinus in his central work, The Enneads.

These ideas found their way from Greece and Asia Minor southward through Syria and eventually to Egypt. There, it was embraced by early Christian mystics known as the Desert Fathers who focused on studying the loss of the Divine Forms in ego consciousness. The particular ways in which these Divine forms became distorted came to be known as the Seven Deadly Sins: anger, pride, envy, avarice, gluttony, lust, and sloth. How the original nine forms, in the course of their travels from Greece to Egypt over the course of a century, became reduced to seven deadly sins remains a mystery."

It seems like drew upon multiple religious teaching to identify primary human behaviours/desires/demeanors. Sins they've associated with each type and Virtues each type should strive for are noted therein as follows:

This doesn't mean human psyche is limited to these 9 facets/expressions. Neural imaging in future might help to identify primary neural pathways and the demeanors associated with each pathway, and hence enable personality mapping.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

It's a rough look at variations in human personality and temperament. Until there's further knowledge on the brain and personality based on the scientific method, it will be akin to early speculation on atomic level structures prior to the invention of powerful microscopes and quantum theory confirming/disproving some of said speculations. Maybe not a great analogy, since enneagram does rely to some extent on observational-based criteria vs the almost complete lack of similar criteria in astrology (some have compared enneagram to astrology, myself included, but I think it's an unfair comparison)

Therefore, you always have to take it with a grain of salt.

 

[yeghor]

Some brief descriptions for each enneagram type, might be useful to have a quick grasp of the motivations and traits of each type.