The Enneagram - We Are Not Our Type

[highlander]

I've been learning a little on Enneagram lately and recently read/heard that we are not really our Enneagram type. It is a "learned personality." Our type is just a template that we fit into. It's not the real us. It's a distortion or immature development of our true and basic nature.

By understanding our type and how that manifests itself in our daily lives, we gain greater self awareness and move towards freeing ourselves from the tyranny of how we overcompensate. We gain an appreciation for our default way of responding and are able to observe how we react from an outside perspective, considering things in a broader context. We learn to have more compassion for ourselves, begin to acknowledge our gifts more fully and better appreciate our own inner wisdom.

I wonder how some of this might relate to MBTI or functions.

Any reactions on this?

 

[NegativeZero]

I once took a test that told you your actual MBTI, your projected MBTI, and your preferred/desired MBTI. Or at least, something along those lines. It was pretty interesting, and probably reflected a lot of enneagram distortion of one's MBTI. I wish I could find it now and had the patience to sit through it. For people going to seek it, I'll have you know that it isn't very accurate. I just find the idea behind it fascinating and useful.

 

[Elfboy]

I once took a test that told you your actual MBTI, your projected MBTI, and your preferred/desired MBTI. Or at least, something along those lines. It was pretty interesting, and probably reflected a lot of enneagram distortion of one's MBTI. I wish I could find it now and had the patience to sit through it. For people going to seek it, I'll have you know that it isn't very accurate. I just find the idea behind it fascinating and useful.

interesting
actual MBTI: ENFP
preferred MBTI: INTJ or INFP
projected MBTI: ENTJ

 

[Speed Gavroche]

I've been learning a little on Enneagram lately and recently read/heard that we are not really our Enneagram type. It is a "learned personality." Our type is just a template that we fit into. It's not the real us. It's a distortion or immature development of our true and basic nature.

By understanding our type and how that manifests itself in our daily lives, we gain greater self awareness and move towards freeing ourselves from the tyranny of how we overcompensate. We gain an appreciation for our default way of responding and are able to observe how we react from an outside perspective, considering things in a broader context. We learn to have more compassion for ourselves, begin to acknowledge our gifts more fully and better appreciate our own inner wisdom.

I wonder how some of this might relate to MBTI or functions.

Any reactions on this?

Yes.

i don't think it is related with MBTI, though. The thing is that from early childhood we realise that the world is not a paradise, our enneatype is a basic proposition through we solved informations and a our focus of attention associated when we felt insecured in our early childhood. Our essence is what we refind when we are able to keep our aquired personality at distance.

 

[Xander]

What we were isn't what we are now but what we are now isn't what we are either that's what we will be???

Sounds like trying to state that what you end up being is your "true" self and that everything else is some kind of stage? Sounds nice, bit romantic though.

 

[redacted]

What is the "real" us anyway?

 

[Ginkgo]

What is the "real" us anyway?

Good question. Literally speaking, we are the real us, regardless. It leads one to believe that, by making a baseless conjecture like there is a "real us", you could make some dough publishing books on how to achieve it.

 

[Xander]

There are some cases where the psychology we inhabit aren't reflective of where we'd be happiest/most effective/balanced. If the state of being happy/effective/balanced is referred to as what we're like as our "true" selves then yes the statement has validity.

Another case of someone not keeping it simple?

 

[Speed Gavroche]

What we were isn't what we are now but what we are now isn't what we are either that's what we will be???

Sounds like trying to state that what you end up being is your "true" self and that everything else is some kind of stage? Sounds nice, bit romantic though.

You seem to have a few problems of understanding.

Nobody has talked about "true self" here.

 

[Xander]

I got it from the OP
"It's a distortion or immature development of our true and basic nature. "

The definition of "True self" that I use, I should note, is not one I've gotten from any book or literature.

 

[brainheart]

Well that's why the parental orientation seems like it would be key when it comes to enneagram. Starts with your primary relationships, how you perceived them, and how you coped. I think your enneagram is kind of your personality crutch, what you rely on for stability. But you wouldn't need it if you weren't injured. So as you become healthier, less reliant on that crutch, you transform into something not confined by type. So a healthier person is going to seem less the type, more difficult to type. It would seem, anyway.

 

[Totenkindly]

What is the "real" us anyway?

That's the debate -- are we discovered, or constructed, or some combination of both? And to what degree? And how would we figure this out?

 

[rav3n]

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/history.asp

The above is the history of enneagram which includes this Ichazo concept:

As we saw in Chapter 1, we all inevitably lose contact with the ground of our Being, with our true identity as Spirit or Essence.

But if you read this, it's conflicting:

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/intro.asp

Everyone emerges from childhood with one of the nine types dominating their personality, with inborn temperament and other pre-natal factors being the main determinants of our type. This is one area where most all of the major Enneagram authors agree—we are born with a dominant type. Subsequently, this inborn orientation largely determines the ways in which we learn to adapt to our early childhood environment. It also seems to lead to certain unconscious orientations toward our parental figures, but why this is so, we still do not know. In any case, by the time children are four or five years old, their consciousness has developed sufficiently to have a separate sense of self. Although their identity is still very fluid, at this age children begin to establish themselves and find ways of fitting into the world on their own.

I cannot buy into the "spirituality" aspect of Enneagram which is sourced from a number of religions. This concept or architecture is reflected in its health levels.

 

[highlander]

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/history.asp

The above is the history of enneagram which includes this Ichazo concept:



But if you read this, it's conflicting:

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/intro.asp



I cannot buy into the "spirituality" aspect of Enneagram which is sourced from a number of religions. This concept or architecture is reflected in its health levels.

That does seem to be conflicting doesn't it. I tend to think of MBTI type as largely inborn and Enneagram as largely shaped by environment.

 

[Speed Gavroche]

That does seem to be conflicting doesn't it. I tend to think of MBTI type as largely inborn and Enneagram as largely shaped by environment.

I tend to think of MBTI type as variable and Enneatype as invariable. We can change our MBTI type but not our Enneatype, basically.

 

[rav3n]

That does seem to be conflicting doesn't it. I tend to think of MBTI type as largely inborn and Enneagram as largely shaped by environment.

When it comes to the total concept of either, I have issues with both. But at least Jung doesn't try to "shape" anyone back to their "spiritual essence". He just informs from observations, the commonalities between people, creating loose categorisations.

This is why I only look to enneagram for its observations. The rest is moot and to be frank, frou-frou.

 

[EJCC]

I've been learning a little on Enneagram lately and recently read/heard that we are not really our Enneagram type. It is a "learned personality." Our type is just a template that we fit into. It's not the real us. It's a distortion or immature development of our true and basic nature.

By understanding our type and how that manifests itself in our daily lives, we gain greater self awareness and move towards freeing ourselves from the tyranny of how we overcompensate. We gain an appreciation for our default way of responding and are able to observe how we react from an outside perspective, considering things in a broader context. We learn to have more compassion for ourselves, begin to acknowledge our gifts more fully and better appreciate our own inner wisdom.

I wonder how some of this might relate to MBTI or functions.

Any reactions on this?

My immediate response is to think that it's total mumbo-jumbo, and to want to go off and fulfill my type stereotype by quitting typology altogether and playing some football!! :workout:

... Mostly because anything about "you" not being the "real" you tends to strike me as pretentious. I am who I am, and it's that simple.

 

[EJCC]

Also, any time I see anything about nature vs. nature that tries to make the answer one extreme or another, I want to shout to the rafters: "It's a little bit of both, and if you don't believe me, ask science!!!!"

 

[skylights]

i tend to think that neither defines us, but neither is likely to change, either.

sort of like not liking a certain flavor of ice cream, or tending to sleep on the right side of the bed. doesn't really matter in terms of your identity, but it's probably not gonna change overnight.

i see enneatype changing more easily than MBTI, though, if only because i have a hard time relating to any enneatype.

 

[Seymour]

I cannot buy into the "spirituality" aspect of Enneagram which is sourced from a number of religions. This concept or architecture is reflected in its health levels.

I don't think you have to buy into the "spirituality" angle to find value in the enneagram. The enneagram types represent patterns of deeply ingrained, habitual defense mechanisms. Like all defense mechanisms, they have utility and serve (or served) a valuable purpose. However, they become problematic when they are engaged unconsciously and reactively. Those defenses, when too often engaged, stand in the way of intimacy and become self-defeating.

The goal is to become aware of those defense mechanisms and to be able to choose when and how to engage your defenses, rather than merely reacting. Meditation is often mentioned with the enneagram, because meditation trains one to be more aware of one's reactions without being swept away by them, thereby expanding the possibility of choice.

I agree, though, there's plenty of woo-woo around the enneagram, which can be a turn-off for some of us.