Re: CHAT: the enneagram

Stephen DeGrace <stevedegrace@...> wrote:

>I have yet to see a Enneagram-MBTI correspondence that
>I don't find risible, unless expressed in terms of
>likelihoods and trends.
Perhaps I should adopt your attitude and laugh :-)  I find these
correspondence theories positively irritating.  They are all
*immediately* flawed on two grounds.  First is the _number_
problem: there are _eight_ Jungian types and _nine_ enneagram
types.  It makes me have to ask, "Hello?  Did you consider
the *blatantly* obvious fact that you can't have a one-to-one
mapping between sets of different sizes?"  The other issue
is the _empirical_ evidence.  The most cursory examination of
the facts reveals that every enneagram type shows multiple
MB type's and vice versa.  I personally know Fives who are INTP's,
ISTP's, INTJ's, INFP's etc.  None of this disputes that there
are trends of course.  ESFJ type-5's, for example, are vanishing
rare, if they exist at all.  The point is, you can't correlate
the two systems in any facile way.  Nevertheless, there are
people who will not give it up.  Even Riso won't.

I should point out at this point for anyone on this list whose
curiosity has been piqued to be wary of learning about the
enneagram on the Internet.  The 'net is loaded with crackpots
on this subject for some reason.  I recommend the books by Don
Richard Riso, or the one by Helen Palmer if you are interested.
If you want some introductory information from the web, then try:

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com

Tom Chou's page has good impressionistic introductions to the
types, even though I disagree with his "directional theory":

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~tchou/

And one other thing.  Don't bother arguing with the enneagram
crackpots any more than you would argue with someone who would,
say, posit an alphabet which miraculously revised itself.
These people simply are not persuaded by either facts or reason.
Trust me here.  I have already tried.



>I've found some of the "cycles" or whatever they're
>called used to characterise and describe the enneagram
>types to be interesting and useful. The "what type are
>you" thing with the enneagram, though, that just
>doesn't fly for me. I think if the enneagram's model
>or reality _does_ happen to fit you it would probably
>be rather useful, but like I've observed some
>individuals make the MBTI go haywire, I seem to be
>someone who makes the enneagram go haywire :P.
I hope you don't mind me saying, but I am afraid that you do
not strike me as beyond enneagram typing :-)  You have a
definite personality, as evidenced by your Idino satire (which,
incidentally, had me quite literally doubled over in a belly
laugh :-)  There are numerous hints--enough for me to suspect
but not enough to hazard a guess.  So please don't ask me to :-)
If you wish to maintain your enneagram non-typability, then
I will respect that.


>With these theories I think it's most fun to take a
>knife to them, cut them open, and see what makes them
>tick <weg>. Hide the lambs and kitties hehehe....
>anyways, as far as I'm concerned, the comparison to
>astrology is probably depressingly apt :P. But yeah,
>this stuff definitely has its uses, that's what's kept
>me interestedall this time...
Yes, me too.


Regards

---   Mike