senza tema
nunc rosa cras fex
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2014
- Messages
- 2,432
- MBTI Type
- INFP
- Enneagram
- 471
- Instinctual Variant
- sx/sp
BREAKING: The Fauvres (or just one, whoever runs the Enneagram Explorations Fb page - David is the only one listed) posted this.
Enneagram Myths:
Many people are now learning about the Enneagram in online forums. I thought this list of myths that persist to be repeated in forums would be helpful.
1. Our type is determined by our childhood. False. All evidence suggests type is genetic and we are born our type.
2. Integration/Disintegration. False. This concept was proposed by Enneagram founder Claudio Naranjo and later he retracted it. We equally go to the high and low sides of the types on the lines from our primary type.
3. Some types are more difficult than others. False. All types in their own way when their core fears are triggered can be difficult to interact with for various reasons. No type is better or worse than any other type.
4. Some types are better suited to be with each other in a romantic relationship than other types. False. The biggest determinant of relationship compatibility in romance is one's instinct not one's type. Any two types can potentially have a happy relationship. That said it's unusual to find couples of the same type. It's most common with 9s.
5. The Enneagram types originated from ancient wisdom and came from Gurjieff or the Sufis. False. The concept of the types is modern and originated with Oscar Icahzo in the 1970s and was further developed by present day Enneagram teachers.
6. We can change our type. False. Our type like our sex (I've been corrected that gender is the wrong term here...lol) is fixed throughout our life time. We can dramatically change our emotional health in relationship to our type and how we express our type.
This isn't to say I don't have my doubts about some of these points above - but at least now there's clear evidence that at least one Fauvre believes type doesn't change.
(I'm kinda hard pressed to believe #1 in particular. I'd be interested to see this evidence.)
#1 seems super bogus to me but I think reasonable cases can be made for the others.