• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Enneagram: Logically Fallacious

Infinite Metamorphosis

✊ A Rebel With A Cause
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,628
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.
 
Last edited:

CertainlySkeptic

New member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
23
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp
There is no such thing as "fear" in Enneagram. It's a fallacy.
 

Vendrah

Never-retiring Millenial
Joined
Mar 26, 2017
Messages
1,810
MBTI Type
NP
Enneagram
952
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.
 

Infinite Metamorphosis

✊ A Rebel With A Cause
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,628
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

Alongside Questionable Clarity
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
1,843
MBTI Type
TiSi
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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

New member
Joined
Sep 24, 2020
Messages
23
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp
Fear and desire don't exist, it's merely a "pseudo-scientific" interpretation coming from RH.
 

Smilephantomhive

Active member
Joined
Aug 11, 2015
Messages
3,352
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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.
 

Infinite Metamorphosis

✊ A Rebel With A Cause
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,628
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.
 

Infinite Metamorphosis

✊ A Rebel With A Cause
Joined
Jan 17, 2018
Messages
4,628
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

New member
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
10
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5w4
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...
 
Last edited:
Top